[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by parsh

If at all this rule is to be enforced, it should be strict across the board for one and all.

Totally agree.

Also, I just finished reading the CMV rules 1989 in its entirety. Strangely, there is abosolutely no mention of sun film. Not once. Then how come these film manufacturers have been claiming that their film is CMV rule compliant?

Rajan

[Gansan]

The "Animal Farm" rule, "all animals shall be equal; however, some will be more equal than others" will apply here. VIPs (read every two-bit babu) will be exempt. All the rest of us will have to tear up the film.

[Rock 'n' rollz]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Totally agree.

Also, I just finished reading the CMV rules 1989 in its entirety. Strangely, there is abosolutely no mention of sun film. Not once. Then how come these film manufacturers have been claiming that their film is CMV rule compliant?

Rajan

Rajan,

I have a sticker pasted on my car's windshield by Garware that states that the sunfilms installed are approved under rule 100 (2) of CMV. Will it be possible for you check if such a rule exists please?

[drsnt]

Originally Posted by Rock 'n' rollz

Rajan,

I have a sticker pasted on my car's windshield by Garware that states that the sunfilms installed are approved under rule 100 (2) of CMV. Will it be possible for you check if such a rule exists please?

After SC ruling all the previous rules/ orders will be superseded, so even if your film was complaint earlier it's illegal now

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by Rock 'n' rollz

Rajan,

I have a sticker pasted on my car's windshield by Garware that states that the sunfilms installed are approved under rule 100 (2) of CMV. Will it be possible for you check if such a rule exists please?

MV 100 (2)

The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards.

While the rule does not explicitly prohibit the usage of sunfilms, it clearly states the minimum VLT as 70% for windshields. Please check the print on the glass itself. The rear windshield of my Palio clearly states " Minimum VLT 70%", meaning it is CMV rule 100 (2) compliant. I had put 70 % VLT film on it, there by reducing the VLT to 49%, which is in violation of the rule.

The SC ruling is due to the fact that it is difficult to control the VLT of aftermarket films and far easier to control and ensure compliance at source, namely the manufacturer of the automobile. Hence the ruling to get rid of films all together and to allow only tinted glass originally fitted in the car, by the manufacturer.

I have nothing against the SC ruling. I am only very sceptical about the implementation. I am waiting to see how many govt. cars, police vehicles, etc will be in contempt of the SC, come 20th May.

Rajan

EDIT: Please preserve that sticker. You might be able to get your money back, afterall, if it says "approved". I doubt if there is any record with Garware about approval.

[bigron]

@ ethan - you know how chandi cops are. if they want to stop you they will even if your side view mirrors are tinted. and if they feeling generous they wont even bother with normal tints also. i suggest you get rid of the rear glass too. no use taking a risk . go to 28 and pick up one of those colorless tints for the rear window. more than 95% visibility and about 70% heat and uv rejection.

[ethan3686]

Originally Posted by bigron

@ ethan - you know how chandi cops are. if they want to stop you they will even if your side view mirrors are tinted. and if they feeling generous they wont even bother with normal tints also. i suggest you get rid of the rear glass too. no use taking a risk . go to 28 and pick up one of those colorless tints for the rear window. more than 95% visibility and about 70% heat and uv rejection.

Are those colourless tints allowed? I thought nothing was allowed. It had to be 100% visibility. Can we also use them on all windows as they will not be visible and light will come in anyway?

[mgh]

In the days before sunfilm, in Podicherry, I had a Padmini with photochromic glasses on the windows and back. The glasses used to be totally transparent and colourless in the morning, turning almost totally dark by late afternoon.

[Mindgrinder]

I am copy pasting a para (23) from the supreme court amendment which says any film or even use of curtains is not allowed, they even discussed european standards and came to this result.

'In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in
holding that use of black films or any other material upon
safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible.
In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT
standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses
for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows
respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the
windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is
the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material
being pasted upon the safety glasses which must conform with
manufacture specifications.'

Here is the link to the whole act, if anybody is interested in reading.
http://www.tilakmarg.com/img1/tinted-glass.pdf

So no film and no curtains (i just got P8 installed yesterday). The only good thing about curtains is that you can pull them down whenever you want. A cop walked passed by my car looking it at in Delhi near Ber Sarai yesterday night, but did not challan or ask anything about them. The drive is more strict in Gurgaon because challan is Rs 1000 there.

Also i spoke to an car accessory dealer and he said you can get 'Air 80' installed edge to edge cops won't even know you have a film

[man_and_machine]

There is a workshop planned in my office to get the films "replaced". If you want to pull down the film they are charging 250/-. If you want them replaced then they do not charge for the pull down of the current film, but only for the replacement (as they will need to pull down the existing one anyway). Now with the SC order, is there still scope to replace? Replace it with what, a colorless (read tint-less) heat arrest film?

Or there something that the vendor's (I am not sure who there guys are, if they are Garware of 3M directly then it might make sense to talk to them on how they read the SC order) know that we are missing in the fine print? If yes, then do the cops read it the same way :-) ?

This whole thing is so confusing to the common man. I was clear that only factory made tint on the glass was allowed with 70 - 50 and no films. This "replace" story has set the confusion in. Anyways its planned from tomorrow, I will post details once I get to know them first hand. Meanwhile any suggestions on what to "replace" with?

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by man_and_machine

This whole thing is so confusing to the common man. I was clear that only factory made tint on the glass was allowed with 70 - 50 and no films. This "replace" story has set the confusion in. Anyways its planned from tomorrow, I will post details once I get to know them first hand. Meanwhile any suggestions on what to "replace" with?

You should not replace it with anything. It should be bare. I dont think there is anything confusing in the SC order.

[Jaggu]

Some good news but not really?

https://www.facebook.com/movementagainstsc

Good Evening Indians. We have a Bad news & a Good news. Good news is that a petition was filed by Garware yesterday. The bad news is Supreme Court of India is now on vacation & the petition will be reviewed now in July until unless the Supreme Court considers this case as URGENT. For that consideration we will have to make it appear Damn Urgent with a Mass effect . So now all is in the hands of Public i.e. You.

Let's see how this pans out

[Mindgrinder]

Originally Posted by man_and_machine

There is a workshop planned in my office to get the films "replaced". If you want to pull down the film they are charging 250/-. If you want them replaced then they do not charge for the pull down of the current film, but only for the replacement (as they will need to pull down the existing one anyway). Now with the SC order, is there still scope to replace? Replace it with what, a colorless (read tint-less) heat arrest film?

I posted the whole act in the post above yours and so did the excerpt of it, please read it. It clarifies the confusion, also forward it to all your friends who might have the same confusion.

[Parthasarathig]

A peculiar question but a question nonetheless.
Are the cops checking vehicles parked in the open near shops and busy roads? Or are they checking only moving vehicles? The reason for my question is do we run the risk of being challaned if we use the suction curtains when our cars are parked in the sun?

Thanks

[ramzsys]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Some good news but not really?

https://www.facebook.com/movementagainstsc



Let's see how this pans out

Perfect timing, not for the consumers but for the sunfilm makers.