P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) IN the claim petition instituted by the dependents of the deceased Motor Cyclist who was killed in the course of an accident in which the other vehicle involved was a tanker insured by the appellant- Insurance Company the compensation claimed was in the sum of Rs. 2 0 0 The Tribunal found that the deceased and the driver of the tanker were equally negligent and that both had contributed in equal measure to the happening of the accident. Having made the aforesaid finding the Tribunal proceeded to assess damages. On a consideration of the evidence the Tribunal found that the damages awardable to the claimants under different heads worked out to Rs. 2 84 344 In view of its finding on the issue of contributory negligence however the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 42 172 only the said amount being one-half of the damages assessed by the Tribunal as payable to the claimants. ( 2 ) THE sole contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal should have made it liable to pay by way of compensation a sum of Rs. 1 0 0 (being 50% of the amount claimed) only and not Rs. 1 42 172 (being 50% of the assessed damages ). ( 3 ) WE are unable to agree. An identical question fell for considera- tion before one of us namely myself in First Appeal No. 523 of 1975 decided on 9/09/1977 under somewhat similar circumstances. In that case the injured claimant had instituted a claim petition wherein the claim for compensation was restricted to Rs. 9 999 The Tribunal on assessment of evidence had found: (1) that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of the claimant (2) that having regard to the evidence on record the claimant was entitled to an award in the sum of Rs. 21 0 (3) that however the claimant having restricted his claim to Rs. 9 999 he was not entitled to claim damages in excess of the said sum and (5) that since the liability in respect of the accident was appor- tioned between the claimant and the tort-feasor in the ratio of 50 the claimant was entitled to damages in the sum of Rs. 4 999 paise being 50% of the amount claimed. 9 999 he was not entitled to claim damages in excess of the said sum and (5) that since the liability in respect of the accident was appor- tioned between the claimant and the tort-feasor in the ratio of 50 the claimant was entitled to damages in the sum of Rs. 4 999 paise being 50% of the amount claimed. The claimant feeling aggrieved by the said award preferred the aforesaid First Appeal and inter alia contended that the Tribunal even if it was right in apportioning the blame for the accident between the claimant and the tort-feasor in the proportion of 50:50 ought to have awarded damages in the sum of Rs. 9000. 00 being the damages claimed and not in the sum of Rs. 4 999 paise being 50% of the amount claimed by way of damages. This Court upheld the contention of the claimant in the following terms:". . having reached the conclusion that the appellant was in law entitled to damages in the sum of Rs. 21. 000. 00 all that the Tribunal could have done was to have made allowance to the extent of 50% in the said amount of Rs. 21 0 and held that the appellant was entitled to Rs 10 500 on the basis of 50:50 apportionment of liability between the appellant and the first respondent. Since the amount of damages arrived at as aforesaid namely Rs. 10 500 was in excess of the amount claimed the Tribu- nal ought to have allowed the full claim made by the appellant. It is not open in a case like the present to allow the apportionment to project into the claim made in the claim petition. Since even in the case of a restricted claim the Tribunal has to first arrive at the conclusion as to what is the true amount of damages which ate awar- dable to a claimant suitable allowance or deduction on account of apportionment of liability has first to be made after having arrived at the principal amount of damages. If on account of such allowance or deduction the amount awardable is less than the amount claimed then of course the award cannot excess the sum awardable as aforesaid. If on account of such allowance or deduction the amount awardable is less than the amount claimed then of course the award cannot excess the sum awardable as aforesaid. If however the sum awardable as aforesaid is in excess of the claim made by the claimant then no further reduction is required to be made and the claimant would be entitled to the full amount claimed in the petition. Damages awar- dable and damages claimed are two distinct concepts and in a case like the present any deduction or allowance to be made on account of apportionment of liability has to be effected in the damages awardable and not the damages claimed. The Tribunal was therefore in error in the facts and circumstances of the present case in not awarding to the appellant the full amount of Rs. 9999. 00 claimed by him in as much the said amount was less than the amount which was awardable i. e. Rs. 10 500" ( 4 ) WE are in agreement with the view expressed as above. Under the circumstances the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant must be rejected. ( 5 ) NO other point was urged. ( 6 ) UNDER the circumstances the appeal is summarily dismissed. ( 7 ) NO orders on civil application. ( 8 ) MR. P. V. Nanavati orally prays for a certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution of -India We do not think that the appeal raises a substantial question of law of general public importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances the request for a certificate is rejected. Appeal dismissed: Leave to appeal refused. .