Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The appellant, aggrieved by the award dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”), has challenged the same before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that claimant-respondent filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 claiming compensation for the death of her husband, Shri Banwarlal, before the learned Tribunal. In the claim petition, it was stated that the husband of the claimant-respondent was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and was working on the post of driver. On 11.11.2006, at about 5:00 AM, when he was driving a roadways bus, bearing No. RJ-17P-625, on the Jhalawar – Jaipur route, after about one kilometer from Mahendrawas, Police Station on Tonk Road, the said bus met with head-on collision with a vehicle, TATA 407, bearing No.RJ-02-G-6265. Due to the said accident, the husband of the claimant suffered grievous injuries. During his treatment, he expired. In the claim petition, it was also stated that the deceased was thirty-two years at the time of accident. His monthly income was Rs.3,000/- per month. It was further stated that the appellants are registered owners of the roadways and the deceased, Bhanwar Lal, was working under their employment. As such, the appellants are fully responsible for making the payment of compensation. The appellants filed reply. The learned tribunal framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief. The learned Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 13.01.2010 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,22,500/- to be paid by the appellants to the claimant-respondent. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting the compensation of Rs.2,22,500/- for the 50% of the negligence of the deceased, who was the driver of the bus itself. Therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 5. In the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has clearly observed that the claimants did not array the driver and the Insurance Company of TATA 407, the other offending vehicle, as a party-respondents. Therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 5. In the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has clearly observed that the claimants did not array the driver and the Insurance Company of TATA 407, the other offending vehicle, as a party-respondents. It also observed that since the accident was head-on collision between the bus, which was driven by the deceased, and the TATA 407, clearly 50% of the negligence was that of the deceased. It is in light of this fact, that the claimant has been awarded only 50% of the compensation. Clearly the logic of the learned Tribunal is that 50% of negligence lay with the driver of the offending TATA-407. Although the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company of TATA-407 were not arrayed as a party- respondents, but it is settled position of law that claimant is free to sue either of the tortfeasors. Thus, as the liability has been imposed upon the appellant, due to 50% of negligence of the driver of the TATA-407, the appellant is certainly entitled to recover the compensation amount from the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of TATA-407. 6. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed. 7. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall be free to pursue the legal remedies against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of TATA-407, if any, available to it.