JUDGMENT : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No. 1863/2009. 2. Briefly stated the facts are:- That the claim petition was instituted by respondents 1 and 2 seeking compensation for the death of their son Ravindra S. Nigam contending that their son was traveling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA11R5462 which collided with a jeep bearing No.CNE7707 as a result of which deceased Ravindra suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The appellant/insurer contested the case. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. fixing the liability on the appellant/insurer. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court inter-alia contending that the Tribunal should have noticed that in a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the ‘Act’ for short) owners of all vehicles involved in the accident deserves to be treated as parties to the proceedings instituted by the claimants. As the Tribunal is not competent to decide the question of negligence, compensation has to be paid by the owners of all the vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal should have noticed that with the ulterior motive, the respondents 1 and 2 have not made the owner of the jeep as party to the proceedings. 4. Per contra, Sri. Anantharam C, appearing for the claimant submits that since the claimant had filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, no negligence is required to be proved. Non-impleading of the owner and insurer of the other offending vehicle involved in the accident is not fatal to decide the compensation to be awarded under Section 163A of the Act. The learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the just and reasonable compensation fixing the liability on the insurer/appellant which cannot be found fault with. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act which is a special provision, based on, the predetermined structured formula. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act which is a special provision, based on, the predetermined structured formula. It is trite that no negligence is required to be proved under Section 163A of the Act unlike the claim under Section 166 of the Act. Having considered the provisions of Section 163A of the Act, it is clear that the victim of the road traffic accident is entitled to the compensation for the use of the vehicle involved in the accident. The factum of accident is not disputed by the appellant/insurer. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle in causing the accident. The Tribunal without examining the contributory negligence or the composite negligence involved in the accident fastened the entire liability on the insurer. This contention has to be examined in the light of Section 163A of the Act. It is well settled legal position that contributory negligence is different from composite negligence. It is inappropriate to accept the theory propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the pillion rider contributed to the accident. At any stretch of imagination, in normal circumstances, pillion rider cannot contribute to the occurrence of the accident unless, any special circumstances is pointed out by the insurer that he caused the accident. The rider of the motor cycle may be at fault, that cannot be extended to the pillion rider to fix the negligence. The arguments of the learned counsel on the factum of contributory negligence thus fails. 6. As regards, the composite negligence is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the deceased is a victim of the motor vehicle accident. He being an occupant of the motor cycle, is the third party as far as the other two vehicles involved in the accident are concerned. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Radha Kamath, reported in 2001 (4) AIR Kar.R. 292. He being an occupant of the motor cycle, is the third party as far as the other two vehicles involved in the accident are concerned. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Radha Kamath, reported in 2001 (4) AIR Kar.R. 292. The Division Bench of this Court in Radha Kamath’s case (supra) has held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act discloses that in a case of composite negligence of two vehicles, the owners and insurers of both the vehicles will be liable to pay the compensation. Admittedly, in an accident involving two vehicles and for compensation under Section 163A of the Act, the liability shall be borne by the owner/insurer of both the vehicles. The Judgment of Radha Kamath (supra) is followed by yet another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thimmaiah vs. KSRTC in MFA No. 3626 of 2013 disposed of on 14.07.2015. 7. It is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 wherein, the Apex Court has ruled that it is open for a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors who is solvent. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Khenyei’s case (supra) and the Division Bench judgments of this Court referred to above, the well settled legal position would be that the claimant can recover from any one of the tort feasors. In the case on hand, since the owner/insurer of the jeep which collided with the motor cycle is not arrayed as respondent, the claimants are entitled to recover the entire compensation from the appellant/corporation however, the appellant/corporation is at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation amount so paid from the owner of the jeep bearing Regn.no.CNE-7707. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the appellant/insurer to deposit the awarded compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization within three weeks from the date of copy of this judgment. Liberty is reserved to the appellant/Corporation to recover 50% of the compensation amount from the owner/insurer of the jeep bearing regn.no.CNE-7707. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Liberty is reserved to the appellant/Corporation to recover 50% of the compensation amount from the owner/insurer of the jeep bearing regn.no.CNE-7707. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Amount in deposit if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.