ORDER 30.03.2017 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 09.3.2016 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri, in MAC No.299 of 2012, rejecting the application of the petitioner-Insurance Company filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the owner and insurer of the other vehicle (Travera Car) No.OR-13-G/2426, as parties to the claim petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submits that as there are materials to show that the other vehicle (Travera Car) No.OR-13-G/2426 was also responsible for the accident and it is a case of composite negligence, the owner and insurer of the other vehicle (Travera Car) are necessary and proper parties to the proceeding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Khenyel – vrs – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2015 (2) T.A.C. 677 ( S.C.), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that in case all the joint tort-feasors have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding, it is open to the Court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort-feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability, so that one may recover the sum from the other tort-feasor. Learned Counsel for the claimants while supporting the impugned order submits that the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on record, having come to a clear finding that the driver of the offending Tractor-Trolley, which stood insured under the present petitioner, was rash and negligent in causing the accident, the plea of the petitioner-Insurance Company regarding composite negligence is erroneous and misconceived. It is submitted that even in a case of composite negligence, it is neither mandatory nor incumbent for the claimant to implead both the tort-feasors as parties to the claim proceeding. The liability of the joint tort-feasors being joint and several, the claimant may choose to sue both or any one of them to recover the entire compensation amount. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that though the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, had lodged the FIR regarding the accident, admittedly she was not an eye witness to the occurrence. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that though the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, had lodged the FIR regarding the accident, admittedly she was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Learned Tribunal has come to find that the Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle (Tractor-Trolley) Nos. OR-13-B/4497 and OR-13-B/4498, with regard to his rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the death of Rabinarayan Mishra. On the basis of such findings, learned Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner-Insurance Company for impleading the owner and insurer of the other vehicle as parties to the proceeding. Law is well settled that even in case of composite negligence, the claimants are entitled to sue both or any one of the tort-feasors and to recover the entire compensation, as the liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. Further, in a case of composite negligence, the apportionment of compensation between the two tort-feasors vis-a-vis the claimants is not permissible. He can recover at his option the whole damages from any one of them. Therefore, only where both tort-feasors have been impleaded as parties to a claim proceeding, the Court/Tribunal is required to determine the inter se extent of their negligence for the purpose of apportionment of the liability amongst such tort-fesors. This, in fact is the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Khenyel-vrs- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (supra), which has been relied upon by the petitioner-Insurance Company. For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, so as to warrant any interference. Writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.