THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3525 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 04.07.2003, passed in O.P.No.231 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 01.10.2000 at about 5.30 PM, while the claimant was proceeding on his scooter from Langar house to Azeeznagar on Chevella Road and when he reached near Police Academy, Himayathnagar, one jeep bearing No.AP-28-E-1724 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He filed the above said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.5,65,000/- . Both the respondents have contested the matter by filing their counter-affidavits. By the order impugned, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that though the FIR and the charge sheet disclosed the crime vehicle as jeep and its driver was also convicted with fine, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.P. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent-owner contended that Ex.A7-case sheet shows that the petitioner was hit by a car and thereafter, it was changed as jeep and that based on the said discrepancy in the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.P., and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 5. Admittedly, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3- panchanama and Ex.A4-scene of offence show that the driver of jeep was responsible for the accident and accordingly, he was convicted with fine. Ex.A5-medico legal certificate and Ex.A7-case sheet show that the vehicle involved in the accident was car, but not jeep. Since the driver of the jeep himself was admitted the offence and convicted with fine, the insurer of the jeep cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner, who sustained injuries in the accident and spent some amount towards his treatment, medicines, transportation etc. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Further, based on the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.56,245/- which the claimant is entitled to. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.56,245/- to the appellant-claimant with interest at 6% per annum payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:13.08.2010 sj