- Indian lawyer Ranjit Malhotra bought an Ambassador car decorated by Mexican artist Senkoe, he hadn’t imagined that the colorful flowers and geometrical figures on its body could result in problems.
- Authorities in the northern state of Punjab decided that so much color on the originally white body of the car violated rules and refused to register the vehicle until a local court ordered in favor of the owner.
“A Story of an Ambassador car decorated by Mexican artist, that had a long fight in court”
Chandigarh: This is strange if in a country where trucks and autorickshaws proudly sport slogans, symbols, and paintings but not in a car.
Yes, authorities in the northern state of Punjab decided that so much color on the originally white body of the car violated rules and refused to register the vehicle until a local court finally ruled in favor of Malhotra on Tuesday.
About a year ago when Indian lawyer Ranjit Malhotra bought an Ambassador car decorated by Mexican artist Senkoe, he hadn’t imagined that the colorful flowers and geometrical figures on its body could result in problems.
Now, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Chandigarh administration to register that Ambassador car painted with artwork after the transport department had declined to do so.
The court’s direction came on Tuesday on a petition filed by Ranjit Malhotra, the car’s owner.
“The reason for denying registration merely on the ground that there is artwork done on the body of the vehicle, where the base remains white, defies logic. Any reasonable person can easily make out that a white car had some artwork done upon it. Like a canvas with a spray of flowers. The base color of the canvas would remain as it is. The Inspector has acted in an arbitrary and wholly whimsical manner, causing undue harassment to the petitioner,” Justice Jaishree Thakur said in the verdict.
The multicolour Ambassador Grand Harit-C-1800, belongs to a high court lawyer, Ranjit Malhotra, who had bought it from a counsellor of the European Union posted at Delhi in July 2019.
He received the 2009 model Bharat Stage- III car in August, upon which he obtained a no-objection certificate from the registering authorities at Delhi and completed other formalities. But the Chandigarh authority refused to register it.
“The artwork done on the car’s body by a renowned Mexican artist, Senkoe”
The reason for purchasing the vehicle from Delhi was the artwork done on the car’s body by a renowned Mexican artist, Senkoe, Ranjit Malhotra had told the court in his petition filed after the registration was denied. Ranjit Malhotra also cited a vehicle being used by the JW Marriot Hotel in Delhi, which has the face of painter Salvador Dali spray-painted on it. Such cars are plying in Delhi without any hindrance, he had told the court.
“Owner of Ambassador car decorated by Mexican artist finally won battel in court”
“Our family values the ambassador and this car was delivered to me last year from my friend who was then posted as a councilor at the EU office of Delhi. Delhi authorities issued the no-objection certificate but Chandigarh administration did not register the vehicle due to the car’s colour which was converted from white to multicolor. So we had to go to the court and now court ruled in our favor.” he was quoted by news agency ANI.
“The administration had argued that during the inspection it was found that the colour of the original vehicle had been changed from white to multicolour”
The administration had argued that during the inspection it was found that the colour of the original vehicle had been changed from white to multicolour. No vehicle can be altered so as to change the original specification made by the manufacturer, which in the instant case would be the colour of the vehicle, the UT had told the court.
“The bench observed that the car had not been subjected to any alteration as would change its basic structure, nor has there had been a change in any of its basic features”
The bench observed that the car had not been subjected to any alteration as would change its basic structure, nor has there had been a change in any of its basic features. “No doubt the artwork done upon it is colorful, but has it changed the basic structure of the car or has the vehicle been altered in any manner which is not permitted by virtue of Section 52 of the Act? The answer is in the negative,” the bench said. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 bars any kind of “alteration” in the car.
(Pictures and information are taken from online available public platform)