Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The appellant Corporation has challenged the award dated 01.05.2004 whereby the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to as the Tribunal) awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. to the respondent claimant for the injuries suffered by him in an accident involving a roadways bus. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.02.2000 when Ghanshyam, the respondent, was returning from a marriage from Khairthal to Behrod in a jeep alongwith others, a roadways bus, bearing No.R.J.02/P.0927, rashly and negligently hit the jeep. Resultantly, the respondent claimant sustained a fracture in his right leg and also suffered grievous injuries on his right hand and simple injuries on his chest and face. Since, his condition was rather serious, he was immediately referred from Behrod Hospital to the S.M.S. Hospital in Jaipur. Twice, he had to undergo operation of the right leg and had to abstain from his business for a few months. Consequently, he sustained a permanent disability of 7.76%. Therefore, he filed a claim petition against the roadways before the learned Tribunal. 3. In their written statements, the Roadways claimed that the accident had occurred not because of the negligence of the bus driver, but because of the rashness and negligence of the jeep driver. Therefore, it claimed that it was not liable for the accident. Thus, it is not liable for payment of any compensation to the injured person. 4. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant examined himself as a witness and submitted a number of documents. The appellant Corporation neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document in its defence. The learned Tribunal framed four issues. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide awarded dated 01.05.2004 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-alongwith interest @ 6% to the claimant. Since, the appellant Corporation is aggrieved by the said award, it has filed the present appeal before us. 5. Ms. Shruti Dixit, the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation, has raised a single contention before us. According to her, the claimant had arrayed only the roadways and its bus driver as a party. However, the had not arrayed the driver, the owner, the Insurance Company of the jeep as a respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. According to her, the learned Tribunal has ignored this fact. According to her, the claimant had arrayed only the roadways and its bus driver as a party. However, the had not arrayed the driver, the owner, the Insurance Company of the jeep as a respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. According to her, the learned Tribunal has ignored this fact. Hence, the impugned award is not maintainable. 6. We have not only examined the impugned order but have also considered the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Corporation. 7. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in an accident claim tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation. The said principle was annunciated by the Court in the case of Mohanlal vs. Balwant Kaur & Ors., (I) 1985 ACC 322. The said principle has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Sampat Kunwar Bai & Anr. vs. Gurmeet Singh & Anr., 1988 ACJ 342. In this case, it was clearly held that although joint tortfeasors may be proper parties, but they are not necessary parties to a claim petition. Since, the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, therefore, the claimant can choose to file claim petition against and recover the damage from anyone of them. Section 140(1) and Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly reflect the settled position of law mentioned above. Thus, the claimant was within his rights in nor arraying the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company of the jeep as a party of the claim petition. Even in the absence of these three parties, the claim petition was maintainable. Hence, the above contention raised by the appellant Corporation is not available to them. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed.