Quote:
Originally Posted by nareshtrao Thanks a lot Rajan. However, I still do not get the VLT rating of the glass. How do you decipher that here? |
That is my whole point. When the law and standards dictate a specific minimum VLT, then why is not explicitly printed on the glass? Agreed that printing IS:2553 Part 2, automatically implies that the glass complies with the specifications of 70% for front and rear and 50% for side windows, what is lacking is the exact VLT of the glass. Both 51% and 90% comply.
A closer look at the manufacturing process might throw some light.
Annealed flat glass is cut to shape, as specified by the car manufacturer, finished and then tempered. The markings we see are put on the glass during the tempering process. The glass cannot be worked upon after tempering. So, all holes and other required work is done before tempering.
The manufacture of the glass itself is done in batch process. Ideally, all glass manufactured in one batch would have approximately the same VLT. Therefore, if glass from the same batch is used for making both rear windscreen and side windows, then the VLT of both would be the same, i.e. >70% to be compliant. The loop hole is, while the standard specifies minimum, it does not talk about maximum. So, the glass with VLT >70% is compliant for both rear windscreen and side windows. So, the manufacturers get away with >70% VLT glass for the side windows as well.
That would explain the need for Sun Control Films, as 70% VLT is almost transparent to the naked eye. The Sun Control Film manufacturers took advantage of this loop hole to manufacture their films and claim "CMVR compliant", as the application of some varieties of such films did not lower the VLT of the side windows to a level that would make it non-compliant.
Once consumers experienced the advantages of the film, they wanted more and the companies started making darker and darker films, to as low as 5% VLT. While they were very much aware that application of such films would render the glass non-compliant, they felt that not claiming compliance was enough. Obviously, sales would suffer, if they were to ask the customer - "By applying this film you are breaking the law. Are you sure you want to go ahead ?". Honestly, I would not be surprised if something to this effect is fine printed somewhere on the box the film comes in, just to absolve themselves, while being fully aware that most consumers would not even see the box, leave alone reading the fine print. While this was permitted on rear side windows in some countries, the Indian law did not have any such provision.
The average Indian consumer makes purchase decisions based on various factors like appearance, cost, durability and VFM. Compliance to the law is seldom on the list and usually somewhere in the bottom, even if it is considered. That is due to the lack of proper enforcement mechanism in our country. There is also no consumer awareness mechanism either.
Manufacturers and vendors take advantage of this and install these non-compliant films on our cars. A few of these consumers decided to misuse this and committed crimes behind the sun film. This resulted in one do-gooder filing a PIL. The rest as we all know is history.
Rajan