Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission exonerated an insurance company from paying for a damaged new car because the vehicle was not registered with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) and the owner used a provisional registration number.According to the case details, complainant Jitendra Patel bought a car from Surat’s dealer King’s Motors Pvt Ltd and began using the vehicle before it was duly registered with the RTO. The vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on May 26, 2015, and the dealer gave possession to Patel before its registration with the RTO. Patel began driving the vehicle with the provisional registration number issued by the dealer. The vehicle met with an accident on June 2, 2015, causing Rs 9.42 lakh damage. The insurer refused to pay the money on the grounds that the vehicle was not duly registered with the RTO in accordance with section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Patel sued the insurer and the dealer with the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Surat (main), on the grounds that the dealer failed to ensure registration and the car was already insured before delivery was taken. In Aug 2018, the district forum concluded that the vehicle owner was also partly responsible for using the vehicle without proper registration, and ordered the insurer and dealer to pay him Rs 4.71 lakh with 8% interest.This decision brought all 3 parties to the state commission, with Patel seeking enhancement in the insurance amount, and the dealer and the insurer seeking exoneration from liability. After the hearing, the commission said, “In view of the decision of the national commission that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not duly registered with the registration authority, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of any amount to the complainant. The insurance company is required to be exonerated from making payment as per the order dated Aug 13, 2018.”While ordering the registry to return the money deposited by the insurance company, the state commission rejected the appeals filed by the dealer and the complainant.
