JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition has been preferred praying for the following reliefs :- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Udaipur in Claim Case No.128/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of petitioner Company for impleadement of driver, owner and insurer of car No.RJ-27-IC-6313 and the truck no.RJ-14-GE-5602 may kindly be allowed.” 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Mangilal in an accident, which took place on 02.09.2019. It was submitted in the claim petition that on 02.9.2019, deceased Mangilal was going towards Umarda while driving his motor-cycle. A truck bearing No.RJ-14-GE-5602 was running ahead the said motor-cycle, which was driven by the deceased and one car no.RJ-27-IC-6313 was following the motorcycle and tractor no.RJ-27-RB-4273 was also following the car. In the claim petition, it was further stated that the tractor hit behind the car, as a result of which, the car hit behind the motor-cycle, as a result of which, the motor-cycle crushed between the car and the truck running ahead and died on the spot. 3. The claim petition was preferred against the owner cum driver of the Tractor and the Insurer of the tractor. 4. A reply was filed by the petitioner Company to the claim petition. The petitioner Company preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC on 15.12.2020 before the learned Tribunal with a prayer that since the accident took place on account of negligence of the drivers of car no.RJ-27-IC-6313 and truck no.RJ-14-GE-5602, therefore, the driver, owner as well as the Insurer of both the vehicles are necessary parties for the determination of the issues involved in the claim petition and, thus, they ought to be impleaded as party respondents to the claim petition. 5. On 06.04.2021, the learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, hence, the present writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.4.2021. 5. On 06.04.2021, the learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, hence, the present writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.4.2021. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of petitioner-Company. The only question which was required to be examined by the learned Tribunal was as to whether the car and the truck, whose driver, owner and insurer are sought to be impleaded as party were involved in the accident or not. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal at this stage could not have decided the question of negligence, more particularly, when the claim petition was at an initial stage. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding in the impugned order dated 06.4.2021 that the claimants cannot be compelled to implead any person as a party to the claim petition, who is a stranger to the lis. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the important aspect of the matter that where two or more vehicle are involved in the accident, the question of inter-se negligence between the driver of each of the vehicle has to be decided by the Tribunal only as per Section 175 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as no civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation, which can be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC of the petitioner-Company as the deceased died on account of collision of the tractor with motor-cycle and after due investigation, challan has been filed against the driver of the tractor only. He further submits that the driver of car and truck, owner and the Insurance Company of the same are not necessary parties to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal and, therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the driver of car and truck, owner and the Insurance Company of the same are not necessary parties to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal and, therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon the judgment having title “Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company & Ors.” (2015) 2 RAR 193 (SC). Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court finds that it is sole discretion of the applicants as to against whom they choose to file an application for compensation and the applicants cannot be compelled or forced to implead a person as party to the claim petition. That the claimant is free to sue against all tortfeasers or one of them. 10. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the submissions made and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as being bereft of merit. 11. Dismissed accordingly.