ORDER The petitioner registered owner of the motor vehicle being a goods lorry of Telco make, bearing certificate of Registration No. KA-17-8569 (for short, 'RC'), reported the loss of the vehicle and the RC to the police station within whose jurisdiction the loss occurred. The police after investigation, being unable to trace the vehicle and the RC filed a 'C' report. The petitioner's insurance claim having been refused, resulted in a complaint to the consumer forum, culminating in an appeal before the State forum, entitling the petitioner to Rs. 5,07,500/-, subject to production of the duplicate RC. The petitioner filed an application in Form 26 under Ru1e 53 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'Rules'), for issue of a duplicate RC, which the 2nd respondent rejected by endorsement dated 18-7-2006, Annexure-G. Hence this petition. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what emerges is that Rule 53 of the Rules provides for issue of duplicate RC. Sub-rule (1) requires the owner of the motor vehicle to report the loss of the vehicle or the destruction of the RC to the police station within the jurisdiction in which the loss or destruction was occasioned and to intimate the fact to the Registering Authority. Sub-rule (2) requires the owner to file an application in Form 26 along the prescribed fee under Rule 81 for issue of a duplicate RC. 3. The petitioner having admittedly complied with the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent was bound by rule to issue the duplicate RC. There is no dispute that the regional transport office has a section called as 'surrender section', amongst other sections, to where the RC was transmitted. By the endorsement impugned the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the premise that the RC was transmitted to the surrender section. The petitioner having admittedly complied with the requirements of Rule 53 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent was bound by rule to issue the duplicate RC, without demur. The reason assigned for the rejection of the application is no justification and is arbitrary. The impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law. The petition is allowed in part. The petitioner having admittedly complied with the requirements of Rule 53 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent was bound by rule to issue the duplicate RC, without demur. The reason assigned for the rejection of the application is no justification and is arbitrary. The impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law. The petition is allowed in part. The endorsement dated 18-7-2006, Annexure-G of the 2nd respondent is quashed, and a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to issue the duplicate RC of the motor vehicle to the petitioner, within two weeks from today.