[carwatcher]

Disclaimer : I have only mentioned the contradictions that I observed and not made any recommendations.

The first line in your post is similar to manufacturers line whenever asked about crash tests that 'their cars meet the standards set by law'.

Also the burden of replacing the 10 and 15 year old car would be same as the replacement cost of new car and residual value of such old car would almost be same (barring 40-50K Rupees). Now tell me if anyone supports the use of such vehicles by people whose livelihood is dependent on it and in the process posing a health risk on the lives of all people.
Who would care about the health costs which are prohibitively expensive too.

The points you have mentioned are subjective and can't be applied to all the cars.
The failure of implementation of PUC tests have made the situation reach this far so hiding behind the garb of PUC rules is really not done if you consider that Delhi is the most polluted city in the world.

Originally Posted by rdst_1

All your points become moot if my 10 year old diesel car can pass the PUC standards set by the law.
You very conveniently seem to ignore the financial burden that such a decision puts on the people whose cars will get scrapped.
I have a Palio which we bought in 2002. I just can't replace it because a) it runs flawlessly due to the way it has been maintained and b) I can't find another car in the same segment that offers the same space inside and c) I am not in a financial state to upgrade to the D segment yet.
Making sure PUC checks are done properly is more than enough to get the desired effects on the environment, but since that is a regulation nightmare, let's just transfer the burden onto the people. How does that make sense to you.

[rdst_1]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Change the puc norms then, and then you have a legitimate non-nazi method to get polluting cars off the road. Enforce the puc. Is there any valid argument against that? Oh, that could mean work freedom monkey.
By the way, what would be acceptable numbers under bs4 at the puc? I would like to check what my old clunker is coughing out.

The thing is, you can't enforce BS4 norms on a BS2 car. If I have an RC for 15 years, then I have to maintain only those BS2 standard of emissions for those 15 years. Until now, things like these weren't really given much thought about, but it just shows how short sighted are the people making decisions if they keep changing these standards every 5 years.

When the PUC norms are decided upon, they should be created keeping in mind that they should be implementable for the coming 2 decades. This over compensation/ strictness will ensure that knee-jerk decisions like these don't need to be made.

[anjan_c2007]

Reference to the Indian Motor Vehicles Act 1988 :-

Sec 40(7)

A certificate of registration issued under sub section 40 (3) whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable.

Sec 59 (1):

Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle :- (1) The Central government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and rules made thereunder.

Now the questions are :-

(1)The Indian Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been passed by the Parliament and has been notified in the Indian Gazette.

(2) Whether the NGT Principal Bench is an authority above the Central government to be vested with the powers to fix the age limit of a motor vehicle u/s 40 and 59 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ?

(3) Evidently, the NGT has exceeded it's jurisdiction and has trespassed into a prohibited domain.

(4) The NGT ruling can be quashed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court .

[rdst_1]

Originally Posted by carwatcher

Disclaimer : I have only mentioned the contradictions that I observed and not made any recommendations.

The first line in your post is similar to manufacturers line whenever asked about crash tests that 'their cars meet the standards set by law'.

Also the burden of replacing the 10 and 15 year old car would be same as the replacement cost of new car and residual value of such old car would almost be same (barring 40-50K Rupees). Now tell me if anyone supports the use of such vehicles by people whose livelihood is dependent on it and in the process posing a health risk on the lives of all people.
Who would care about the health costs which are prohibitively expensive too.

The points you have mentioned are subjective and can't be applied to all the cars.
The failure of implementation of PUC tests have made the situation reach this far so hiding behind the garb of PUC rules is really not done if you consider that Delhi is the most polluted city in the world.

So, just consider that I have a car which I bought 10 years ago. When I bought the car, the govt had set BS2 standards which the car companies followed. Was there an option for me to buy a BS4 car then.
So if the govt issued me an RC for 15 years that means that if my car keeps meeting those BS2 standards I could keep driving that car for the next 15 years.
Now suddenly, out of the blue, they tell me that I can't drive my car anymore. You talk about residual value, but what about the money that I have to suddenly invest in a new vehicle. What if I can't afford a new vehicle right now ? How am I responsible for the short sightedness of the lawmaking body? Which rule did I break when I bought that car 10 years ago and was promised that I can run that car for the next 15 years for which I even paid road tax.

Yes, it is the need of the hour to make right decisions so that we stop causing harm to the environment. But this decision is not that. Like I said before, the govt can and should just stop selling diesel vehicles to private owners. This decision coupled with building a robust public transport network will have a much more resounding and long term affect benefitting the air and the environment than this rash and stupid decision. Also there is a lot more that is going wrong with Delhi that is causing these issues, least of which is the rapid unplanned expansion and reduction in green spaces.

[Torqy]

There are people who change cars every 3-4 years or as and when new models roll out. They will have no issues with this rule. For others like me, this is a slap. It sure shows how unplanned and thoughtless the decision makers are.

-- Torqy

[anand.shankar]

I find no logic in the move! Why ban Existing vehicles ? Why not force manufacturers to stop production and sale of micro diesels for domestic consumption ? The old cars on the road will die a natural death any way, why add the burden to the owner ?

The NGT decision seems to be a hasty and ill informed one, instead of looking at long term solution, the Govt. body as usual is looking at quick wins.

I guess Diesels should be allowed in the commercial segment, Purpose built special application vehicles, and on heavy SUVs. These vehicles form a small % of the car market anyways. The 2.0 L cap doesn't make sense either, how efficient will a Petrol motor be when mounted on a heavy Endy or a T-Fort ?

Instead why don't they push manufacturers to build better hybrids ?

Actually, instead of the 4M rule, they need to bring in new lower tax slabs for Hybrids and efficient cars, so that manufacturers will stop spending millions on ugly sub 4M contraptions and rather spend it on developing better motors.

[Tharian@KP]

Just two weeks ago I paid advance for my new Thar vehicle. Now because of this illogical ban, I’m contemplating whether to go ahead and buy the car.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by rdst_1

So if the govt issued me an RC for 15 years that means that if my car keeps meeting those BS2 standards I could keep driving that car for the next 15 years.

What you say is true, but the NGT order can presumably be challenged in court. The previous ban on the sale of new cars had a limited impact and the SC wasn't swayed by a common man angle. This time around I am quite sure the government will have to implement some sort of a compensation along with refund of road tax for 5 years as an accompaniment to this implementing this order.

Originally Posted by Torqy

It sure shows how unplanned and thoughtless the decision makers are.

Originally Posted by anand.shankar

I find no logic in the move!

The logic is only sound if the rule includes commercial and government vehicles, particularly public transport.

Apparently only 2% of the pollution in Delhi is caused by diesel vehicles, according to The Financial Express quoting a study done by IIT Kanpur. There is no denying that diesels pollute more than petrols by emitting a greater amount of particulate matter, so while the intention is good they seem to be overzealous in the implementation.

Two examples of better approaches:

1. All pollution test centres in Bangalore have been interconnected (I didn't know this, report today in the Bangalore Mirror). The government now plans to automate fines for vehicles if their owners do not renew the PUC post expiration, and they will get accurate data from all of the centres in Bangalore. Good move. It will imply greater planning when travelling out of Bangalore near the expiration date, but I think it is a well thought out move addressing both petrol and diesel vehicles.

2. The UK (from which the NGT has taken inspiration, apparently) has a system of representing the age of the vehicle as part of the vehicle registration. This make it very easy to target vehicles for checks/fines. The ban on diesel vehicles over 10 years old would be enforceable far more easily and with less inconvenience if such a system were in place.

I'm not against such a move if it is well thought out, and the impacted common folk are recompensed fairly especially for the five years of road tax that they will not now be using. No such ruling will be entirely fair to every individual, just as the cut off age limits for admission in schools - a child may just be born in a month that makes em too young this year and a year older than everyone else the next.

The government does need to shape up (don't we know that!?!) too though. If the Pollution Control checks weren't so easy to bypass/bribe, things wouldn't have been so bad in the first place. Example is several years ago I was renewing the certificate for my bike. It was slightly above the maximum, and the PUC person adjusted the readings and gave me the printout along with advice to get my bike serviced - all without me asking. Didn't take a bribe, so he was just helping out a fellow being

Does anyone else see a lobby from vehicle manufacturers here? Diesel vehicle sales are falling, people keep their cars too long, what better way to force them to change their cars once at least every 10 years? Sooner, because most people would like to sell their vehicles for a reasonable amount, so 5 years is what I predict.

[dhawcash]

In my opinion, a test similar to MOT should be implimented. Keep the ban, but atleast give well maintained vehicles an opportunity to prove their road worthiness. Keep it strict, or even make yearly inspection mandatory ( for eg when i visited hong kong, people were driving around in sl 300s and evo vii s. They told me they require yearly fitness tests to drive a vehicle on road legally.)

Ooh implementation kaise hoga?
Well where there is a will there is a way.

And by the way, someone tell NGT that vehicles, houses, even bridges are deagned for an expected life. The figure ranges to 20 + years for cars and goes upto 100+ yeats for civil projects. Now why spend energy scrapping something made to perform for 20 years and then spend some more to make a new replacement? [ energy expenditure is propotional to pollutants emitted]

One reason i can think of is improved efficiency when scrapping and manufacturing is done in bulk, but would maintaining old cars well really cost the planet more energy/ release more pollution?

maintainance has a great impact on service life, and i agree poorly maintained vehicles are screwing the planet up. But do the numbers really favour these decisions?

[prakhar1998]

Despite being a car enthusiast, I am all for the environment. However, this decision is absolutely baseless for various reasons. One significant one being, it takes a lot of energy (read pollution) to make a new car. It is almost equivalent to 3-4 years of a car's running emissions.

So, if suddenly all these cars are taken off the road, so many new cars will be demanded and hence manufactured. That will lead to a much larger footprint of carbon emissions. Additionally, these set of new cars wouldn't be particularly modern in their pollution abatement technology considering we still rely on very obsolete standards when it comes to emissions.

I may be speculating, but this may indirectly be related to a very strong car lobby that has been able to persuade (or well bribe) somebody to take this decision. Think of the amount of money they'll be able to mint with this decision. I really have lost hope because of these irrational knee-jerk reactions.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Torqy

There are people who change cars every 3-4 years or as and when new models roll out. They will have no issues with this rule. For others like me, this is a slap. It sure shows how unplanned and thoughtless the decision makers are.

-- Torqy

Even this category of people are suffering, except maybe the absolute rich. The answer is resale value. The second or third owner is not going to pay you much since they know that they can drive the car for only 3-5 years themselves before being forced to sell it outside NCR, a process that is painful and does not get you the best price.

[rakesh_r]

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/A...20072016017020

Now Toyota has stopped putting in fresh investments.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by rdst_1

The thing is, you can't enforce BS4 norms on a BS2 car. If I have an RC for 15 years, then I have to maintain only those BS2 standard of emissions for those 15 years. Until now, things like these weren't really given much thought about, but it just shows how short sighted are the people making decisions if they keep changing these standards every 5 years.

When the PUC norms are decided upon, they should be created keeping in mind that they should be implementable for the coming 2 decades. This over compensation/ strictness will ensure that knee-jerk decisions like these don't need to be made.

Unfortunately, car makers have been more stringent in production.
My 11 year old diesel has readings of 1.34, and 43.8, much under the BS4 cap of 1.62, and 50, as per the PUC.

[anachronix]

Somebody is set to gain a lot from all these scare being generated in the market by NGT.

What is more surprising is the Central/State govt. being weirdly quiet about all these disturbance in the market!

[--gKrish--]

Originally Posted by rakesh_r

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/A...20072016017020

Now Toyota has stopped putting in fresh investments.

As Viwsanathan said, these people think they know everything, just because they happened to know law and having an intent to curb pollution doesnt mean that they can take insane decisions like this. If anyone in NGT had known the basics of the working of modern engines, at least if he/she has driven and maintained his/her car rather than getting chauffeured around would not have agreed to this. I think limiting number of cars per family (for domestic use), promoting car pooling within family/co-workers and strict emission checks would have helped. Maintaining roads without Potholes/Bottlenecks and developing the State Public Transport to enable everyone to commute conveniently, is far more important than bid to host olympics in 2024.