RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order dated 20. 11. 1996 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Karimnagar in O. P. No. 687 of 1993 which was filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12. 6. 1993 at about 8. 15 a. m. wherein the R. T. C. bus bearing No. AP 9-Z 3819 was involved. The learned Judge of the Tribunal below on appreciation of the entire evidence on record determined the compensation at rs. 95,000 but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the R. T. C. bus who is a necessary party to the claim petition was not added by the petitioner and hence the respondent Corporation cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. Questioning the same, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of driver as a party to the proceedings, that a Division bench of this court while dealing with a similar appeal already considered this issue in Kollipara Veera Raghavamma v. S. Raghavaraju, 1996 (3) ALT 483 and held that the appeal is maintainable even if the driver of the accident vehicle is not made a party to the proceedings and sought to set aside the findings of the Tribunal below. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment and evidence. ( 4 ) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the driver of the offending vehicle is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. ( 5 ) WHETHER a claim for compensation is made against the owner of a truck or a motor vehicle, the driver is not a necessary party to the proceedings as the driver was only a servant of the owner and owner s vicarious liability does not cease because the servant was not made a party to the claim. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act contemplates relief against the owner only. ( 6 ) THE principle underlying is that the owner is liable for the tortious acts committed by his servant during the course of employment. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act contemplates relief against the owner only. ( 6 ) THE principle underlying is that the owner is liable for the tortious acts committed by his servant during the course of employment. Generally, the owner is being sued, as he is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant. The driver so long as he commits any tortious act during the course of employment, the owner is jointly liable with the driver. It is a general principle of law that in case of joint tortfeasors that the claimant can claim compensation against one of the joint tortfeasors. ( 7 ) THE principles of pleadings underlying are that the suits could not be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, formal defect if any and failure to mention the appropriate names of the parties who would be liable to pay compensation would not defeat the claim for compensation, it is necessarily to look into the format for filing claim application. Rule 476 of the motor Vehicles Rules does not indicate that the driver has to be impleaded as a necessary party. As per rule 476 (4), the Claims tribunal shall not reject any application made as per Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of any technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified. In this context, it is relevant to look into section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act where applications for compensation are being filed. Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:"166. Application for compensation. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal. representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this act. " ( 8 ) WHEN a similar case has come up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this court in Andhra Pradesh State road Trans. Corpn. v. T. Yashoda, 1996 (4) ALT 1133 , this court held as follows:"the law is settled that the driver is not a necessary party. Neither section 110-A of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder contemplates impleading the driver as a party. The owner of the vehicle will be vicariously liable for the act of negligence on the part of the driver and when once that is established the owner of the vehicle becomes squarely liable to pay compensation and if there is insurance, by virtue of the indemnity clause in the insurance company, the insurer becomes liable. Moreover, the scheme of the Act in Chapter XI and the rules framed thereunder do not indicate as to who are the necessary parties or proper parties. " ( 9 ) IN Babu Singh v. Champa Devi, 1974 ACJ 168 (Allahabad), the Allahabad high Court held as follows:"the driver was only a servant of the owner and the owner s vicarious liability does not cease because the servant has not been made a party to the claim. The Motor Vehicles Act contemplates relief against the owner only. " ( 9 ) IN Babu Singh v. Champa Devi, 1974 ACJ 168 (Allahabad), the Allahabad high Court held as follows:"the driver was only a servant of the owner and the owner s vicarious liability does not cease because the servant has not been made a party to the claim. The Motor Vehicles Act contemplates relief against the owner only. " ( 10 ) IN the case of Badri Narain Prasad v. Anil Kumar Gupta, AIR 1979 Patna 204, the point for consideration is whether the claim application against the owner without joining the driver as a party is maintainable. A Division Bench of the Patna high Court while considering the above point held that it is futile to argue that in the absence of the driver, the claim application of the appellant is not maintainable. ( 11 ) IN Kollipara Veera Raghavamma v. S. Raghavaraju, 1996 (3) ALT 483 , this court at paras 6 to 9 held as follows:"the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Sharifa Bee v. General Manager, andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corpn. , 1991 ACJ 1093 (AP), which held as follows: it is necessary to take out notices to a party respondent who has remained ex pane in the lower court, by impleading him in the appeal-as a respondent, for the purpose of a decision in the main appeal. in this case, respondent No. 2 remained ex parte in lower court and no notice was taken out to him in the appeal and in this appeal before us. The above said case proceeded as if the Civil Procedure code is applicable to the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The procedure applicable to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals is framed under the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964. Rule 517 of the Rules is in the following terms: 517 (1) Notice to parties involved. The above said case proceeded as if the Civil Procedure code is applicable to the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The procedure applicable to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals is framed under the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964. Rule 517 of the Rules is in the following terms: 517 (1) Notice to parties involved. If the application is not dismissed under rule 516, the Claims Tribunal shall send to the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and its insurer, a copy of the application, together with a notice of the date on which it will hear the application, and may call upon the parties to produce on that date any evidence which they may wish to tender. under the above rule, the requirement is only that the Claims Tribunal should send notice to the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and its insurer and not to the driver. We have gone through the above judgment and this rule 517 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles rules, 1964, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Had this rule been noticed by the Division Bench, the division Bench could have reached a contra decision. In Kranth Sangram parishat v. N. Janardhan Reddy, 1992 (3) ALT 99, a Full Bench of this court held as follows: there is no dearth of decisional law on per incuriam an English law doctrine adopted by our law. Very rarely this doctrine is invoked and its application is limited to decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned. [see Morelle v. Vakeling, (1955) 2 qb 379]. we, therefore, declare that the judgment rendered in Sharifa Bee v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. (supra) is per incuriam. In claims before the claims Tribunal, notice to the driver is totally unnecessary and we hold that the appeal is maintainable. " ( 12 ) IN Gaurabai v. Jagdish Prasad, 1984 ACJ 360 (Bombay), the Hon ble bombay High Court held as follows:"however, it is well established that the master is bound by the acts of the servant, even if the act is unauthorised or prohibited, provided the act was within the scope of the service or employment. " ( 12 ) IN Gaurabai v. Jagdish Prasad, 1984 ACJ 360 (Bombay), the Hon ble bombay High Court held as follows:"however, it is well established that the master is bound by the acts of the servant, even if the act is unauthorised or prohibited, provided the act was within the scope of the service or employment. The principle is that, when a servant does any act, which he is authorised by his employment to do under such circumstances and conditions and does it in a manner, which is unauthorised and improper, even then the employer is liable for the wrongful act of the servant. Moreover joint wrongdoers are jointly and severally responsible for the whole damage. That is to say, the person injured may sue any one of them separately for the full amount of the loss, or he may sue all of them jointly in the same action, and even in this latter case the judgment so obtained against all of them may be executed in full against any one of them. A master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment. Where, therefore, the driver of a vehicle is primarily responsible for a running down accident a suit for damages against the owner of the vehicle is maintainable even to the absence of the driver. " ( 13 ) IN Badri Narain Prasad v. Anil kumar Gupta, AIR 1979 Patna 204, a division Bench of the Patna High Court held as follows:"the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several, each may be sued alone or jointly with some or all the others in one action; each is liable for the whole damage, and judgment obtained against all of them jointly may be executed in full against any one of them. It is thus futile to argue that in the absence of the driver, the claim application of the appellant is not maintainable. Claim application against owner without joining driver is maintainable. It is thus futile to argue that in the absence of the driver, the claim application of the appellant is not maintainable. Claim application against owner without joining driver is maintainable. " ( 14 ) IN Anuradha Varma v. State of kerala, 1994 ACJ 353 (Kerala), a Division bench of the Kerala High Court categorically held that as per the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act it is not obligatory on the part of the claimant to make the driver also a party to the proceedings and it does not mean that the application without impleading the driver is not maintainable. ( 15 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Gulabi sudhu, 1995 ACJ 965 (Bombay), a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court observed as follows:"the provision of the Motor Vehicles act does not make it obligatory that the driver must be made a party. What is required is only that the name of the driver is to be disclosed if it is known. If the name of the driver is not known then it may not be possible for the claimants to disclose it. " ( 16 ) FROM the catena of decisions cited above, it is very clear that the claim application is maintainable even without adding the driver as a necessary party to the proceedings and as per the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, it is not obligatory that the driver must be added as a party. Thus the findings of the learned Judge that the claim application against the Corporation is not maintainable due to the nonjoinder of driver as a necessary party is erroneous. In this view of the matter and following the aforementioned decisions, this appeal has to be allowed and the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 95,000 towards compensation as determined by the Tribunal below. ( 17 ) AT this stage learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the learned Judge determined the quantum of compensation at Rs. 95,000, but did not make any whisper about the interest aspect and requested this court to grant interest at 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of petition till realisation. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and an amount of Rs. 95,000, but did not make any whisper about the interest aspect and requested this court to grant interest at 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of petition till realisation. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and an amount of Rs. 95,000 is awarded to the appellant-claimant as determined by the tribunal below towards compensation. Further the appellant-claimant is also entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum, on the awarded amount of Rs. 95,000 from the date of claim petition till realisation. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.