( 1 ) IN this appeal filed by the claimant under sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 a short question regarding award of proper compensation for accidental damage caused to the car of the appellant arises for consideration of this court.

( 2 ) THE claimant filed M. A. C. petition No. 12 of 1976 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Broach. In the said claim petition he contended that motor car bearing No. G. T. I. 5440 was owned by him. On 18/10/1975 at 7 p. m. his son Farokh Romanji Ginwala was driving the said motor car and was going from Mohmedpura side towards the railway station i. e. from west to east in Broach city. When his car was at a distance of 50 feet from a place popularly known as Panchfanas a tractor with a trowler trailer bearing No. GJN 8557 with a cultivator about 7* feet long attached at the back of the tractor was going from east to west. The claimant alleged that the tractor was driven with dazzling light and the cultivator attached at the back of the tractor was not in a fixed state but was moving to and fro along with the motion of the tractor and when the car driven by his son passed by the side of the tractor the pointed hook of the cultivator attached to the tractor dashed with the right side mudguard of the car and pierced through and through the right door of the car near the drivers seat on right side and in the process extensive damage was caused to the car. The case of the claimant is that no light was fixed on the cultivator and the cultivator was not in a fixed state but was moving to and fro with the movement of the tractor and was kept in such a projected position that it was never possible for the driver of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction either to notice the cultivator or the to and fro movement of the cultivator. Further contention of the claimant is that the tractor ought not to have been driven on the asphalt road with the cultivator attached to it in such a condition and that it was on account of the negligent act of driving of the tractor coupled with the further negligent act of keeping the cultivator in such a condition projecting on both the sides that the hook of the cultivator pierced the mudguard of the car and this type of rash and negligent driving of the tractor cultivator was responsible for the extensive damage caused to the car. The car had to be kept unused for 3-4 months during which period extensive repairs to the car were carried out at the cost of Rs 7 130 In the meanwhile the claimant 0 had to go without car and that caused considerable inconvenience and loss to him. He had to take on hire other vehicles for his business and other purposes. On that account further amount of Rs. 2 869 claimed by the claimant. Thus in all Rs 9999/-were claimed from the present respondents who were the driver of the offending tractor insurance company which had insured the said tractor against third party risk the owner of the tractor and the Gujarat State Land Development Bank Limited with which the tractor was placed under an agreement of hire purchase. As the claim petition has been totally rejected by the Tribunal the claimant has approached this court for award of damages on account of accidental damage caused to his car. (HIS Lordship after discussing the evidence held that contributory negligence of the claimants son was to the extent of 25% and the liability of the tortfeasor to answer the claimant being confined to 75% it is obvious that the claimant cannot get full claim on account of repair charges incurred by him on the car after the accident. The claimant therefore would be entitled to Rs. 5 250 with six per cent interest from the date of the application and with proportionate costs. His Lordships further observed : ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) INSURERS liability :- That takes me to the last question involved in this appeal and that pertains to the liability of the insurance company original opponent No. 2 present respon