JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Shri Lalaram, the complainant purchased a vehicle on 06-07-2012. It was insured on the same day. The petitioner was having temporary registration certificate for a period of 30 days which naturally expired on 05-08-2012. After 05-08-2012 the complainant was having neither temporary registration certificate nor the permanent registration certificate. Unfortunately, his vehicle met with an accident on 18-08-2012. On that day, the petitioner was having neither the registration certificate, temporary nor permanent, as well as the permit.

2.      The State Commission by reversing the order of the District Forum accepted the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and dismissed the complaint.

3.      We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the RTI report which goes to show that the petitioner had applied for fitness receipt. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he has paid the registration fee in the sum of Rs.3,000/- as well and other fee which was required for getting the permanent registration on 27-07-2012. The RTO was not made a party in this case. Their explanation is not coming. It was the bounden duty of the complainant not to drive the vehicle unless or until he was carrying permanent registration. The counsel for the petitioner lastly pleaded that in view of the authority in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (4) SCC 536, the compensation should be granted on the non-standard basis. We are afraid that authority is not applicable to the present case. Keeping registration certificate is a fundamental factor. The said authority is not applicable to this case.

          The revision petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.