[Altocumulus]

Quoting The Telegraph, Kolkata. Wednesday , April 24 , 2013

"New Delhi, April 23: If you have vehicles with tinted glass, then be ready to let go of your insurance claim.

The proposal from the ministry of road transport also says that an insurance company can deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident."

Link to entire article : http://epaper.telegraphindia.com/det...-16228906.html

Mods: Please feel free to merge with another thread if applicable.

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

The proposal from the ministry of road transport also says that an insurance company can deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident."

Here comes one more retrograde step from our brash Govt.

In spite of the fact that the 16th Dec incident happened inside a BUS and NOT a CAR, it us car owners who have to bear the brunt of such silly decisions while a lot of buses are on the road with tinted glasses.


Now since, two incidents of heinous child rape happened inside houses, will they ban opaque windows in houses too?

[scopriobharath]

I am confused on how it would be "enforced" What if someone removes the tint after an accident?

I am not sure what the barrier is, but so many things can be "enforced" with Insurance Renewal.

Insurance companies must renew the insurance only after the vehicle has been inspected. This will add at least 30% more enforcement. The percentage of people who would remove the tints and apply back after insurance renewal would be miniscule.

[MetalBuff]

"Deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident"!!!!!

C'mon man! Why is the goverment treating us like kindergarten children? I mean enforcing rules like no insurance renewal till the car is tint-free makes "some" sense but, definitely not this.

Also, how difficult would it be to tear off the films after an accident? BS laws being created for nothing. Probably, the goverment wishes to somehow ignore the issues which actually need attention. I would not want to comment about their affinity to being in the news for the wrong reasons.

-Shivang Gandotra

[sgiitk]

Given our cavalier attitude about the law, I must be the odd one out who applauds this!

[sukhoi30]

Can insurance companies do that? In an agreement with the insurance company, there is no such clause which says that claims can be denied due to the tinted glass.
Another point, the SC order says no sun films of any grade on vehicle windows but tinted glass to the extent mandated by law is allowed provided it is put on by the manufacturing company iteself. Now if even tinted glass is incurring penalty then what are consumers going to use.
Due to this stupid law, I am unable to put on any sun films in my car and the summer heat is just causing irreparable damage to the vehicle interiors. On top of it the fuel consumption increase due to the need for full blown AC.
And yes, the police is keen on trapping only genuine car owners. What about luxury buses, transport vehicles etc.... I have never seen them checking these vehicles.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Given our cavalier attitude about the law, I must be the odd one out who applauds this!

+1.

Although I don't completely agree with the sunfilm ban, I see this as a much more effective method than having policemen jumping in front of vehicles to check sunfilm.

Remember- the law says sunfilm is illegal. We don't raise a cry when insurance is denied for minor driving, drunken driving etc right?

[MetalBuff]

Originally Posted by sukhoi30

And yes, the police is keen on trapping only genuine car owners. What about luxury buses, transport vehicles etc.... I have never seen them checking these vehicles.

Hello sukhoi,

Trust me when I say this, they catch hold of each and everyone from Mercs to luxury buses with the intention to make a quick buck

The office bus that I travel in, used to be fined almost daily after which the tints were finally taken off, for good.

-Shivang Gandotra

[KiloAlpha]

This ruling is not very different from standard practice followed by insurers world-wide. Find every possible way to deny claims.

In the world of auto insurance, a clause like "vehicle must be road-worthy and legal in all respects" anyway gives an insurance company an excuse to deny claim since sun film is against the law.
Whats missing in our country is a strong regulator who will oversee insurance companies and clamp down on frivolous denials. So, if I skidded on a patch of diesel on the highway and hit the median, the insurance company will deny my claim because I had CR70 sun film (this is a clear film that filters UV/IR only) fitted on rear quarter glass and the rear window. Do we have a regulator to say that the denial is frivolous?

However, I will very strongly agree with Mr.Bumble and say, like he did so many years ago - "If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass — a idiot." (see http://www.bartleby.com/73/1002.html)

[babu.sundaram]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Given our cavalier attitude about the law, I must be the odd one out who applauds this!

+1 sir.

In fact, I would say this is a far effective step to implement the ban on sun films than cops trying to implement the ban!

That I wish, the same ban be extended to all vehicles and the reason why H'oble court gave that verdict are different matter!

[Rehaan]

Its a very smart move, but for a very stupid reason.

I too would be applauding this if it was to the tune of "We wont honour your insurance claim if..."

• You weren't wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident
• Your tyres were below the minimum allowed tread depth
• Headlights/brakelights in non-working condition
• Wipers missing (monsoon months)
• etc

I think the zero-tolerance ban on sun-film is stupid. The earlier regulation of allowing only upto a certain amount of darkness of the films was fine.

There's a thousand better ways to improve (road) safety in this country than ban sunfilm.

cya
R

[ambadan]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Given our cavalier attitude about the law, I must be the odd one out who applauds this!

+1. Law is law and we need to follow it. I still can see many vehicles with "black" films on glasses.

[ACM]

Well I guess anything that makes all of us give up sunfilms on all vehicles will help. I still have my sunfilm on but plan to get it removed in due course post this summer.

Yep the law should apply to buses as well.

Actually commercial vehicles require to renew their permits a lot more regularly than pvt. vehicles which only required the passing certificate after the car is 15+ years old. So if we have a law that bans the passing certificate for any vehicle with tinted glasses it will add to the various methods that can be used to cut down on tinted glasses. It finally will need to be a 360 degree approach over time.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by MetalBuff

"Deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident"!!!!!

C'mon man! Why is the goverment treating us like kindergarten children?

When people flout norms like children, I would not mind if someone can enforce this. I mean I removed my tints and followed the law and it is fair for me to expect others follow it too (Z security exempt).

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Given our cavalier attitude about the law, I must be the odd one out who applauds this!

I second you. Anyone police or private agency can enforce this - hats off to them.

[thoma]

The article is mentioning "tinted glass or solar films". Does this mean the factory fitted glass that comes with slight tints? No, I guess.

Apart, but does the thugs really care about claiming insurance?