JUDGMENT : M.D. Shah, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29-9-2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari in MACP No.38 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,760/- (being 60% of the total compensation amount of Rs.2,49,600/- as it was held negligent to the extent of 60%) to be paid by the original opponent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. 2. Facts in short are that claim petition was filed by heirs and legal representations of deceased Sureshbhai claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for death of the deceased which is caused in an accident which occurred on 17-11-1991 when the deceased was going on motor cycle as a pillion rider from Chikli to Vansda driven by is friend Hasmukh Kantilal Thakore and when they reached near Village Deldha, truck No.MP-1200-0878 owned by opponent No.2 and driven by opponent No.1 and insured by opponent No.3 rashly and negligently and in excessive speed dashed with the motor cycle from front causing fatal injuries to the deceased. 3. Upon the summons being served, opponent No.3 filed written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues for determination were framed by the Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held the opponents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the extent of 60% as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, present appeal has been preferred by the original claimants. 4. I have heard learned advocates, Mr. Hiren Modi for the present appellants-original claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company and have also taken into consideration the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence such as FIR and panchnama and other evidence. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr. 4. I have heard learned advocates, Mr. Hiren Modi for the present appellants-original claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company and have also taken into consideration the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence such as FIR and panchnama and other evidence. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr. Modi, that deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle and accident took place between the motor cycle and the truck and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that motor cyclist was negligent to the extent of 40% and truck driver was negligent to the extent of 60% and held the insurance Company of the truck liable to pay the amount and ordered it to recover the amount from the owner of the motor cycle. He further submitted that this is a case of composite negligence and as deceased was a pillion rider and not rider of the motor cycle, legal heirs of deceased are entitled to entire amount of compensation from the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck though the insurance of the other vehicle is not joined as party and Insurance Company of the truck is at liberty to recover the same amount from the owner of motor cycle or the insurance company of the motor cycle. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) 2008 ACJ page 1165 SC in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others; (ii) 2008 ACJ page 1335 (Guj) in the case of Kusumben Vipinchandra Shah and another v. Arvindbhai Narmadashankar Raval and Others; (iii) 2008 ACJ page 2170 (SC) in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another v. K.Hemalatha and others; and (iv) 2009 ACJ page 2527 (Guj) in the case of Surendrabhai Chunilal Sheth (deceased) through heirs and others v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and others. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, he submitted that even if the insurance company of the other vehicle has not been joined as party to the proceedings, the claimant can claim compensation from the insurance company which is party to the proceedings and it can recover the proportionate amount of compensation from the other Insurance Company which has not been joined for the negligence of other vehicle. He further submitted that the claimant may be ordered to be paid the entire amount from the opponent No.3-insurance company which is joined as party. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, submitted that though negligence of the driver of the truck has been held to the extent of 60% by the Tribunal, it has directed the respondent No.3 to pay the total amount of compensation awarded which is unjust and improper. According to him, since negligence of the rider of motor cycle has been held to the extent of 40%, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay that part of amount of compensation. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has attributed composite negligence on the part of both the drivers i.e. 40% negligence on the part of motor cycle rider and 60% negligence on the part of truck driver. Said finding appears to be just and proper and does not require to be interfered with. However, the Tribunal has apportioned the amount to be paid by the respondent No.3 Insurance Company and other tortfeasors which is not proper. This Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to recover the said amount jointly and severally from all the opponents jointly and severally and hence, Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.2,49,600/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the First Appeal filed by the original claimants deserves to be allowed in part. 9. Thus, First Appeal is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,49,600/- awarded by the Tribunal jointly and severally from the original opponents Nos.1 to 3 with interest @ 12% per annum. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount and may institute proceedings against other tortfeasors for recovery of amount. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Remaining part of impugned award remains unaltered. 10. Office is directed to send back the record and proceedings, if any, forthwith. Appeal disposed of.