ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-claimant challenging the order dt. 9th August, 2019, whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the Insurance Company has been allowed and it has been directed that driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle i.e. motor cycle, be impleaded as parties in the claim petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-claimant submitted that in the alleged accident which took place on 1st February, 2017, serious injuries were sustained by the petitioner and the petitioner filed a claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle bearing No. RJ-08-UA-2945. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the Insurance Company under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has wrongly been allowed by the Tribunal. 3. Counsel submitted that impleadment of the parties is the sole discretion and choice of the claimant and if there are two colliding vehicles, claimant reserves his right to make the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle against whom he wants claim and as such he cannot be insisted that all the joint tortfeasors in case of composite negligence, should be made party. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) ACTC (SC) 563. Para 9, 10 & 11 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.A. Vergis & Ors. [ 1991 (1) ACC 226 ], it has been observed that the case of composite negligence is one when accident occurs and resulting injuries and damages flow without any negligence on the part of the claimant but as a result of the negligence on the part of two or more persons. In such a case, the Tribunal should pass a composite decree against owners of both vehicles. In United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Varghese & Ors. [1989 2 ACC 483 : 1989 ACJ 472], it has been observed that in a case of composite negligence, the injured has option to proceed against all or any of the joint tortfeasors. In United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Varghese & Ors. [1989 2 ACC 483 : 1989 ACJ 472], it has been observed that in a case of composite negligence, the injured has option to proceed against all or any of the joint tortfeasors. Therefore, the insurer cannot take a defence that action is not sustainable as the other joint tortfeasors have not been made parties. Similar is the view taken in United India Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. U.E. Prasad & Ors. [ AIR 1985 Kar. 160 ]. In Andhra Marine Exports (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. P. Radhakrishnan & Ors. [ AIR 1984 Mad. 358 ], it has been held that every wrong doer is liable for whole damages in the case of composite negligence if it is otherwise made out. Similar is the view taken in Smt. Kundan Bala Vora & Anr. v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1983 All. 409 ], where a collision between bus and car took place. Negligence of both the drivers was found. It was held that they would be jointly and severally liable to pay the whole damages. In Narain Devi & Ors. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. [1989 2 ACC 116 (Del.) : 1989 ACJ 1118 ] there was a case of composite negligence by drivers of two trucks involved in an accident which hit the tempo from two sides. The proportion in which the two vehicles misconducted or offended was not decided. It was held by the High Court that the Tribunal was right in holding the liability of tortfeasors as joint and several. 10. A Full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and etc. v. Arun alias Aravind and etc. etc. [ AIR 2004 Kar. 149 ] has affirmed the decision of another Full Bench of the same High Court in Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed & Ors. [ILR (1999) Kar. 403]. A Division Bench referred the decision in Ganesh's case (supra) on following two questions to the larger Bench: "1. If the proceedings are finally determined with an award made by the Tribunal and disposed of in some cases by the appeal against the same by the High Court, does the Tribunal not become functus officio for making any further proceedings like impleading the tortfeasor or initiating action against him legally impermissible? 2. If the proceedings are finally determined with an award made by the Tribunal and disposed of in some cases by the appeal against the same by the High Court, does the Tribunal not become functus officio for making any further proceedings like impleading the tortfeasor or initiating action against him legally impermissible? 2. What is the remedy of a tortfeasor who has satisfied the award, but who does not know the particulars of the vehicle which was responsible for the accident?" 11. A Full Bench in KSRTC v. Arun @ Aravind (supra) while answering aforesaid questions has observed that it was a case of composite negligence and the liability of tortfeasors was joint and several. Hence, even if there is non-impleadment of one of tortfeasors, the claimant was entitled to full compensation quantified by the Tribunal. The Full Bench referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hiraben Bhaga & Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [1982 ACJ (Supp.) 414 (Guj.)] in which it has been laid down that it is entirely the choice of the claimant whether to implead both the joint tortfeasors or either of them. On failure of the claimant to implead one of the joint tortfeasors, contributory liability cannot be fastened upon the claimant to the extent of the negligence of non-impleaded joint tortfeasors. It is for the joint tortfeasors made liable to pay compensation to take proceedings to settle the equities as against other joint tortfeasors who had not been impleaded. It is open to the impleaded joint tortfeasor to sue the other wrong doer after the decree or award is given to realize to the extent of others' liability. It has been laid down that the law in Ganesh's case (supra) has been rightly laid down and it is not necessary to implead all joint tortfeasors and due to failure of impleadment of all joint tortfeasors, compensation cannot be reduced to the extent of negligence of non-impleaded tortfeasors. Non-impleadment of one of the joint tortfeasors is not a defence to reduce the compensation payable to the claimant. In our opinion, the law appears to have been correctly stated in KSRTC v. Arun @ Aravind (supra)." 5. Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3666/2012 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. In our opinion, the law appears to have been correctly stated in KSRTC v. Arun @ Aravind (supra)." 5. Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3666/2012 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MACT, Jaipur & Ors.) & other connected writ petitions dt. 26th October, 2012. The operative portion of the order dt. 26th October, 2012, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MACT, Jaipur & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "For the aforesaid reasons, it is amply clear that in view of the settled principle of law that where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but has a combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is a case of composite negligence. Further, in a proceeding for claim even if based on composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is not bound to a strict analysis of the cause of the event to find out as to whom he can sue. He is entitled to sue by or any of the negligent persons and he is not to find out as to whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons. He has a right to sue any of them because he can recover the full amount of damages either of the defendants. Therefore, those persons who are sued are not to insist on having the others joined as defendants. The reason being simple that because of omission to sue some person, the plaintiff will not be dis-entitled from claiming the full relief against those who have been sued. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the learned tribunal has not committed any illegality or grave irregularity while passing the impugned order and no interference is called for by this court as the same is in accordance to law. The impugned order deserves to be affirmed by this court. Consequently, these writ petitions filed against the order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the learned claims tribunal, Jaipur district Jaipur, are dismissed as being devoid of merits." 6. The impugned order deserves to be affirmed by this court. Consequently, these writ petitions filed against the order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the learned claims tribunal, Jaipur district Jaipur, are dismissed as being devoid of merits." 6. Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that if there were two colliding vehicles, the Insurance Company was justified in moving application for impleadment of the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Counsel submitted that claim of the petitioner can be better adjudicated when proper parties are before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. This Court finds that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MACT, Jaipur & Ors. (supra) has also reiterated the same principle and choice has been given to the claimant to sue any of the negligent person and he is not required to find out as to whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between those persons. The Coordinate Bench has also observed that the claimant has right to sue any of the negligent person because he can recover full amount of damages from either of the parties. The persons, who are sued are not to insist on having the others joined as defendants and right of the claimant cannot be defeated on the ground that other persons can be impleaded as party. 9. This Court finds that the order dt. 9th August, 2019, has not been passed, as per law and as such the order dt. 9th August, 2019 is set aside. The Tribunal is free to proceed further in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.