( 1 ) COMPLETE ignorance of basic and elementary principle of law on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has led to the filing of this appeal by the appellant insurance company with whom the motor vehicle involved in the accident was insured. And we are left with no alternative but to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim made by Respondent No. 1 original claimant for damages for injuries sustained by him in the accident.

( 2 ) CAN a tort-feasor who has been found to be guilty of causing accident for rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle be awarded compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident and can the insurance company be held liable to pay compensation to the driver of motor vehicle who is a tort-feasor without holding the insured or the owner of the motor vehicle liable for the compensation are some of the questions which arise for our consideration in the background of the following facts.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Jagatsinh Valsinh original claimant (hereinafter referred to as the claimant was employed as driver by Respondent No. 2 original opponent No. 1 to drive Matador bearing registration No. GTF 5932 which was owned by Respondent No. 2. On 9/08/1981 the claimant was driving the Matador from Visnagar to Mehsana when the accident occurred. It is the case of the claimant that brakes of the Matador were not properly functioning and he had complained about it to Respondent No. 2 two days before the accident. Respondent No. 2 however did not get the brakes repaired. On the date of the accident when the claimant was taking the Matador from Visnagar to Mehsana and when he was proceeding from Kansarakui to Pasna there was a cyclist on the road who was driving his cycle On the right side of the road. According to the Claimant was driving the Matador at a moderate speed and when he was about to pass the cyclist the cyclist turned his cycle towards left. The claimant had therefore to apply brakes to avoid collision with the cyclist. It is the claimants case that when he applied brakes the Matador went on the kaccha road on the left side slipped down the road and turned turtle. according to the claimant soil had become soft and sticky on account of rains and as the road was on higher level than the adjoining land the Matador slipped and turned turtle as stated above. As a result of the Matador turning turtle the door on the drivers side that is claimants side broke down and the claimant was thrown out through the window. As a result of his accident the claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries including fracture of lower first vertibra with posterior displacement. According to the claimant as a result of the injuries sustained by him he is not in a position to use his lower Limbs and he will have to remain in bed for his whole life. The claimant filed a petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 146 of 1982 claiming compensation of Rs. 1 50 0 from Respondent No. 2 owner of the Matador and the appellant original opponent No. 2 insurance company with whom the Matador was insured.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2-owner and the appellant insurance company resisted the claim made by the claimant. The main contention which was raised by them was that the claimant cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him or disablement suffered by him as a result of such injuries because the accident occurred on account of his own negligence. The insurance company further contended that if the braces of the Matador were defective as stated by the claimant the insurance company cannot be held liable because the Matador with defective brakes should not have been taken out on the road. The appellant and Respondent No. 2 also contended that claimant was not entitled to claim more compensation than what is awardable to him under the Workmens Compensation Act. According to them claim of R