Gujarat Consumer Commission Exonerates Insurer in Unregistered Car Damage Case
The Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has delivered a significant ruling, exonerating an insurance company from paying for damages to a new car that was not registered with the Regional Transport Office (RTO). This decision underscores the critical importance of proper vehicle registration under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Case Background: The Unregistered Vehicle Incident
According to the case details, complainant Jitendra Patel purchased a car from Surat's dealer, King's Motors Pvt Ltd. He began using the vehicle before it was duly registered with the RTO, relying on a provisional registration number issued by the dealer. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on May 26, 2015, and Patel took possession from the dealer prior to RTO registration.
On June 2, 2015, the vehicle met with an accident, resulting in damages amounting to Rs 9.42 lakh. The insurer refused to pay the claim, arguing that the vehicle was not registered with the RTO as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Legal Proceedings and Initial Ruling
Patel subsequently filed a lawsuit against both the insurer and the dealer at the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in Surat. He contended that the dealer failed to ensure proper registration and that the car was already insured before delivery. In August 2018, the district forum ruled that Patel was partly responsible for using the vehicle without proper registration. It ordered the insurer and dealer to pay him Rs 4.71 lakh with 8% interest.
Appeal to the State Commission
This decision prompted all three parties to appeal to the state commission. Patel sought an enhancement in the insurance amount, while the dealer and insurer sought exoneration from liability. After hearing the arguments, the commission referenced a decision by the national commission, stating that since the vehicle was not duly registered with the registration authority on the date of the accident, the insurance company could not be held liable.
The commission explicitly stated, "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."
Final Ruling and Implications
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. This ruling highlights the legal necessity for vehicle owners to ensure proper RTO registration before using their vehicles, as failure to do so can invalidate insurance claims under the Motor Vehicle Act.
