Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal filed by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the Tribunal) awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 to the claimants on account of death of Prem Verma in a motor vehicle accident. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 7.11.2004 at about 3 p.m., Prem Verma was going from Morinad to Bassi Pathana in car bearing No. HR 06-C 9080 being driven on the left side at a slow speed and when it reached in the area of Bahadurgarh behind Baba Mazaar, a truck bearing registration No. HR 58-A 2215 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and struck against the car. Prem Verma died on account of the injuries received by him in the accident. It was pleaded that Prem Verma was 26 years of age and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month from the business of jewellery. The claimants filed a claim petition for compensation before the Tribunal on account of the death of Prem Verma. 3. Upon notice, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck filed a joint written statement. The factum regarding the death of Prem Verma was denied for want of knowledge. It was pleaded that no accident had taken place with truck No. HR 58-A 2215 and a false F.I.R. has been lodged against the driver. It was further pleaded that the said truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Yamuna Nagar vide Cover Note No. 629351 dated 15.5.2004. The insurance company in the written statement pleaded that the driver of the said truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the owner, driver and insurer of the car bearing registration No. HR 06-C 9080. Denying the averments made in the claim petition, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 4. Denying the averments made in the claim petition, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "(1) Whether respondent No. 1, Gurmit Singh caused the death of Prem Verma, on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR 58-A 2215 on 7.11.2004 in the area of village Bahadurgarh?OPP (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP (3) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged petition? OPR3 (4) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner, driver and insurer of car No. HR 6-C 9080? OPR3 (5) Whether the truck in question was not having a valid route permit at that time? OPR3 (6) Relief." 5. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal under issue No. 1 held the present case to be a case of negligence of both drivers of the offending vehicles in causing the accident. Issue No. 3 was decided against insurance company holding that driver of the offending truck was holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 22.3.2006 awarding a total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment to claimant Nos. 1 and 2 only. The said compensation amount was liable to be paid jointly and severally by the insurance company, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and they have been held entitled to recover half of the amount of compensation from the other tortfeasor under law. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 7. The main contention raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 had recorded a finding that both drivers of the offending vehicles, i.e., the truck and the car, were negligent in causing the accident but the Tribunal held that claimants are entitled to recover the entire amount from the driver, owner and the insurance company of the offending truck. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer contents that as the driver, owner and the insurance company of the offending car had not been impleaded in the claim petition, the claimants were not entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from them. In such an eventuality, the Tribunal could not have ordered the recovery of more than 50 per cent of the amount of the compensation from the driver, the owner of the offending truck as well as the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has controverted the aforesaid submissions and placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Raj Kumar V/s. Union of India, F.A.O. No. 484 of 1993; decided on 22.9.2006. 9. The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is whether in a case of composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles, claimant can recover the entire amount of compensation from one party without impleading the owner, the driver and the insurer of the other vehicle as a party? 10. This court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) while relying on a Division Bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Parveen Juneja, 2003 ACJ 378 (P&H), has held as under: "(3) ...If there was any negligence of the driver of the tractor-trolley then also it cannot be said that the driver of the car was not negligent and when this is the position, if the driver of the tractor- trolley is to be held guilty then also it is a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. As per the settled law, the claimant can choose to sue any of the tortfeasors and in such a case the question of contributory negligence does not arise." 11. Accordingly, it is held that in case of composite negligence the claimant can recover the amount from one of the joint tortfeasors without even impleading the other tortfeasor as a party respondent and in that situation the only remedy to the tortfeasor is to recover the amount from the other tortfeasor but the claimant cannot be denied the full compensation. 12. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.