JUDGMENT : 1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the original claimants questioning the award dated 31.3.2005 passed by learned Tribunal so far as apportioning the liability between two vehicles is concerned, i.e. rickshaw bearing No.GTX 551 and truck No.GJ 14 T 3651 to the extent of 50% upon each of the vehicles. 2. Precisely, the claimants by way of preferring the present appeals have challenged the findings so far as apportionment made, as noted hereinabove, is concerned, inter alia, contending that since the injured as well as deceased were travelling upon rickshaw No.GTX 551 as passengers and therefore, status of the deceased as well as injured was in the nature of passengers which falls within the definition of third party upon both the vehicles involved in the accident as such. Therefore, there was no question of counting any contributory negligence upon the shoulder of either of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. 3. Heard Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate and Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance company. 4. Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate has submitted that there are series of decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court wherein the principle is settled so far as the victim is concerned. The victim can claim from any one of the joint tort-feasors and that the claimants have impleaded the drivers / owners / insurance company both the vehicles as respondents – opponents while filing the claim petitions. Even, if the learned Tribunal found negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, in that case, since the status of the deceased as well as injured claimants stood as third party, learned Tribunal could not have apportioned liability and could have fastened joint and several liability. 5. Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance company has contended that learned Tribunal has rightly apportioned liability to the extent of 50% as the truck was stationery upon the road and injured as well as deceased were travelling upon the rickshaw. 6. Taking into consideration the rival submissions and having perused the impugned judgment and award, indisputably, the principle is very clear and no longer res integra that the victim can claim and proceed against any of the joint tort-feasors. 6. Taking into consideration the rival submissions and having perused the impugned judgment and award, indisputably, the principle is very clear and no longer res integra that the victim can claim and proceed against any of the joint tort-feasors. Even, the victim has right to proceed against the driver, owner and insurance company of the stationery truck leaving aside the driver, owner and insurance company of the rickshaw upon which they were travelling. In that view of the matter, learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in apportioning and not fastening joint and several liability. To that extent, finding recorded by learned Tribunal is required to be modified and accordingly, the appeals to the said extent are required to be allowed. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed to the extent of joint and several liability. However, New India Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount to the extent of 50% from the driver and owner of rickshaw but shall satisfy the entire award at the first. R & P, if any, be sent back to the lower court concerned forthwith.