( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order dated 20. 11. 1996 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Karimnagar in O. P. No. 687 of 1993 which was filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12. 6. 1993 at about 8. 15 a. m. wherein the R. T. C. bus bearing No. AP 9-Z 3819 was involved. The learned Judge of the Tribunal below on appreciation of the entire evidence on record determined the compensation at rs. 95,000 but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the R. T. C. bus who is a necessary party to the claim petition was not added by the petitioner and hence the respondent Corporation cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. Questioning the same, the present appeal has been filed.

( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of driver as a party to the proceedings, that a Division bench of this court while dealing with a similar appeal already considered this issue in Kollipara Veera Raghavamma v. S. Raghavaraju, 1996 (3) ALT 483 and held that the appeal is maintainable even if the driver of the accident vehicle is not made a party to the proceedings and sought to set aside the findings of the Tribunal below.

( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment and evidence.

( 4 ) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the driver of the offending vehicle is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.

( 5 ) WHETHER a claim for compensation is made against the owner of a truck or a motor vehicle, the driver is not a necessary party to the proceedings as the driver was only a servant of the owner and owner s vicarious liability does not cease because the servant was not made a party to the claim. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act contemplates relief against the owner only.

( 6 ) THE principle underlying is that the owner is liable for the tortious acts committed by his servant during the course of employment. Generally, the owner is being sued, as he is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant. The driver so long as he commits any tortious act during the course of employment, the owner is jointly liable with the driver. It is a general principle of law that in case of joint tortfeasors that the claimant can claim compensation against one of the joint tortfeasors.

( 7 ) THE principles of pleadings underlying are that the suits could not be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, formal defect if any and failure to mention the appropriate names of the parties who would be liable to pay compensation would not defeat the claim for compensation, it is necessarily to look into the format for filing claim application. Rule 476 of the motor Vehicles Rules does not indicate that the driver has to be impleaded as a necessary party. As per rule 476 (4), the Claims tribunal shall not reject any application made as per Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of any technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified. In this context, it is relevant to look into section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act where applications for compensation are being filed. Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:"166. Application for compensation. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: provided that where