JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are, one by the insurance company and the other by Nenu Ram, alleged to be not the owner of the vehicle, who is somebody else. 2. It is alleged, the registered ownership of the vehicle was in the name of a firm, namely, M/s. Nenu Ram Ramjeewan, but the claim was filed against Nenu Ram only. Therefore, the claim cannot be entertained. It is also argued that the claim was filed against the driver along with the insurance company and the alleged owner. The driver having allegedly died during the pendency of the claim petition, the claim is not maintainable in the absence of the driver. 3. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 6,000 on account of general damages. The Tribunal held, inter alia, that the registered owner of the vehicle, though a firm, is a proprietary firm of which the owner is the sole proprietor. The case made out on behalf of the other side, i.e., the insurance company, was disbelieved by the Tribunal. 4. The second point urged is that since the proceeding was initiated against the owner, insurer as also the driver and the driver having died, the whole proceeding fails in the absence of necessary party. The court below held that it has not been proved that the driver has died and, therefore, the question of bringing the legal representatives does not arise. 5. In so far as the first question is concerned, when the insurer or the owner has failed to claim that the firm is not a proprietary firm by cogent evidence and finding made against them in the proceedings under section 110C of the Motor Vehicles Act, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact. 6. The next question which is more relevant and which has been argued by Mr. Bhansali is that after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1969, the words added after the words "the insurer" are "or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be". It is enjoined on the part of the claimant to bring on record, if any of these, owner or driver, is dead, the legal representative of the deceased as a party. It is enjoined on the part of the claimant to bring on record, if any of these, owner or driver, is dead, the legal representative of the deceased as a party. Not having done so in this case, the driver, according to the appellant, having died, the whole proceedings must abate. 7. In my opinion, it will not be so. The words which have been added the 1969 Amendment after the words"the insurer", i.e.,"or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be,"make it clear that the insurer, owner or driver are jointly and severally liable for the claim of the applicant who has suffered the injury. They are joint tortfeasors and vicariously liable. 8. In Salmond and Hauston's Law of Torts, Eighteenth Edition, at page 417, it has been held that if a number of persons jointly participate in the commission of a tort, each is responsible, jointly with each and .all of the others, and also severally, for the whole amount of the damage caused by the tort, irrespective of the extent of his participation. 9. In George Wimpey and Co. Ltd. v. British Overseas Airways Corporation [1955] AC 169 (HL) Lord Porter has held that the person damnified might sue one joint tortfeasor alone. 10. In Wah Tat Bank Ltd. v. Chan Cheng Kum [1975] AC 507 (PC) it has been held that in the case of joint tortfeasor, action can be made against them jointly or severally. In Hiraben Bhaga v. Gujaral State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1981 Gujarat 267 , it was held that although the claimants had the option to join the driver of a jeep as one of the opponents for his contributory negligence, that choice given to the claimants did not make him a necessary party. The claimants could sue the joint tortfeasors either jointly or severally and could have a complete redress for the injuries suffered by them from either of them. It has been further held that if one of the joint tortfeasors is not impleaded in a claim petition, it is open to the claimant to either join the joint tortfeasor or not. The claimants could sue the joint tortfeasors either jointly or severally and could have a complete redress for the injuries suffered by them from either of them. It has been further held that if one of the joint tortfeasors is not impleaded in a claim petition, it is open to the claimant to either join the joint tortfeasor or not. The section, as amended, makes it clear that the claimant can join the insurer or owner or driver and they will be jointly or severally liable for any amount that can be given against him. 11. In Mehta Madan Lal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1136 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the liability for payment of compensation in the case of a motor accident is the joint and several liability of the insurance company and that liability cannot be apportioned between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle if the compensation is to the extent of Rs. 50,000, 12. In the circumstances, therefore, in my opinion, even if it is taken to be that the driver died during the pendency of the claim petition and his legal representative has not been brought on record, the claim petition will not fail on that ground in view of the specific provision in Section 110BB, as amended by the 1969 Act, which embodies the principle of liability of joint tortfeasors. In the circumstances, therefore, I dismiss both the appeals by the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. 13. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will be costs as against the insurance company and the owner and if the money has not been paid, the money must he deposited within two months from today with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till payment. *******