The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claimant can recover compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, and the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The court emphasized that the claimant's compensation cannot be reduced due to non-impleading of the other tortfeasor.

( 1 ) THIS reference has been placed before this Full Bench as per the order of the Chief Justice, dated 14. 10. 2003, and has come up before us today. The other connected matters referred involve the same question of law and as agreed they are also taken up together for consideration.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the factual matrix of the case with reference to essential facts which are not in dispute, giving rise to this reference can be stated with reference to M. F. A. No. 4552 of 1997 and Cross-Appeal No. 11 of 1998 as follows: in a motor accident that occurred on 15. 4. 1993 at 21:30 hours on Bagalkot to guddankeri Road, due to collision of a k. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MEF 8529 and a lorry coming in opposite direction, arun alias Aravind, aged 31 years, who was travelling as a passenger in the bus, sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and right elbow leading to amputation of right hand above elbow on 17. 4. 1993. The injured filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act) before M. A. C. T. , Bijapur (M. V. C. No. 603 of 1993), seeking compensation of Rs. 8,15,000 from respondents, the driver of bus and K. S. R. T. C. , being the owner and insurer. The driver, owner and insurer of the lorry were not impleaded as the driver drove away the lorry without stopping after the accident and the particulars of the driver, owner and insurer could not be ascertained. The respondents resisted the claim petition by contending that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and since driver, owner and insurer are not impleaded in the petition, the petition is not maintainable and even otherwise, quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal after inquiry, by its judgment and award dated 31. 3. 1997, held that the accident did not occur due to any negligence of the petitioner and occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of bus and lorry and they were equally blameworthy to the extent of 50 per cent each and further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment and since driver, owner and insurer of lorry were not parties to the petition, passed award for Rs. 90,000 against the respondents. The respondents in the claim petition being aggrieved by the said award, filed M. F. A. No. 4552 of 1997 contending that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the quantum of compensation awarded is also excessive. Claimant has preferred Cross-Appeal No. 11 of 1998 contending that compensation awarded to the claimant could not be reduced for non- impleading of driver, owner and insurer of lorry and quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and since it is a case of composite negligence, claimant is entitled to recover full amount of compensation to which he is entitled and he is entitled to recover compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors.

( 3 ) WHEN these appeals along with connected appeals were posted for hearing, the Division Bench referred the matter on 18. 7. 2003 as it felt that the Full Bench decision of this court in Ganesh v. Syed manned Ahamed, 2000 ACJ 1463 (Kar- nataka), did not consider the following questions:" (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) 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?"in the instant case, the particulars of lorry that was partly responsible for the a