[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by GTO

Going forward, I see two outcomes:

- Huge spike in supply & demand of colourless sunfilm.

That is also illegal because colourless doesn't mean 100% VLT. The court has disallowed any sunfilm. As Patchyboy posted above, the sunfilm manufacturers have been taking us for a ride too. What's the point of pushing 70% VLT sunfilm for front and rear windshields, when the OEM glass is not 100% VLT ?
The combo would definitely be less than 70% VLT and hence, illegal!

[Speed Pujari]

Just came back from 3M where I went to get my Sunfilms removed. He did not remove for two reasons-
1. He said the one I have is RTO approved.
2. He told me to wait for a week since there are speculation about stay order for this rule.

Fingers crossed, since he was quite certain about the stay order.

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

As soon as Asahi can come up to speed with them.

I guess Asahi would have the technology in-hand already, and many of the manufacturers already have those tinted glass as standard. But yes, with this new rule you may see manufacturers coming up with something like tinted glass with 99% UV rejection on the top variant, and 50% or so on the mid-variant

[honeybee]

I have browsed on the net for this and came up with this link:

Supreme Court bans use of tinted glass beyond permissible limits

It seems the supreme court has in effect made sure the CMVR rule regarding sunfilm/tinted glasses are enforced more strictly. Since the CMVR rules already ban films/tints with visibility lower than a specific amount, the supreme court ruling merely reinforces these rules. I don't understand why all the hue and cry about it.

I recently got sunfilm installed on the Ikon, and while browsing through the various optoins available, I clearly saw two categories of film: RTO approved and RTO un-approved. The sample booklet clearly mentions which films are RTO approved and which aren't. The seller did comment that the films without approval can work too as nobody checks, but I was clear on not crossing the limits.

What I did not do, and should have done, is to get a certificate from him (which the manufacturer of the film should have provided) that the film is within the legal permissible limits.

Effectively, we have a choice of using film which is permissible and film which is not permissible. Why should we blame the court ruling if we decided to go with the film which was not permissible?

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

Just came back from 3M where I went to get my Sunfilms removed. He did not remove for two reasons-
1. He said the one I have is RTO approved.
2. He told me to wait for a week since there are speculation about stay order for this rule.

Fingers crossed, since he was quite certain about the stay order.

This raises a very interesting question. Glass by itself has a VLT of 89 - 92%. How can a 70% VLT film have RTO approval, when it is applied to a less than 100% VLT glass? Wouldn't that be in violation of CMV? I am considering asking for the RTO approval documents from the film manufacturers under RTI

Rajan

[arun_sharon]

Originally Posted by HighOctane

In Bangalore the drive against sunfilms ban to start from May 20th. Bangalore Traffice Police has arranged camps in 8 places to get the sunfilm removed by 19th May

I got my 3m removed today. Went to the BDA complex at indranagar. My observation and advice is to keep away from those guys. Charged 150 and is very unprofessional in peeling it off. No cleaning of leftover gum . it took good 2 hours of mine to clean the mess up.

[IQBAL VEERJI]

Originally Posted by DCEite

This is totally ridiculous. They are blaming all the rape cases, road rage cases, accidents on TINTS. How funny?!
Methinks they are just trying to hide their own incompetence by passing such laws.

These good for nothing illiterate politicians,netas,corporators,nick nack reletives,wives,sons,mitra mandli are having and will have all these heavy tints on their cars inspite of the rules.
They say as usual "Let me see who stops me for the tints on my car".
I forgot to mention about those common persons having a political party FLAGS on their No.plates,or at times the flags are kept on the front portion of the dash board to show off their CONTACTS.

[vnabhi]

Did any of you guys sign the petition posted on Facebook against this ruling? I did it couple of days ago, though I am not sure about its legal validity.

Petition: the supreme court of india: Reconsider decision on a blanket ban on car films. | Change.org

[vinjosep]

Originally Posted by honeybee

It seems the supreme court has in effect made sure the CMVR rule regarding sunfilm/tinted glasses are enforced more strictly. Since the CMVR rules already ban films/tints with visibility lower than a specific amount, the supreme court ruling merely reinforces these rules. I don't understand why all the hue and cry about it.

Effectively, we have a choice of using film which is permissible and film which is not permissible. Why should we blame the court ruling if we decided to go with the film which was not permissible?

@Honeybee: Please have a look at the judgement once again (discussed to death in this thread) --> http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/...c%2026511p.txt

The ban is on ALL films/ anything-else-on-the-mirror that is not factory-fitted! And this is where everyone seems to disagee with the court order, i.e. a blanket ban on sunfilms. Had the ban been about non-premissible sunflims, we wouldn't be having a thread with close to 100 rants/ posts about the order.

[Irish]

A message from Mr. Satyendra Garg (Joint CP, Traffic) on Delhi Traffic Police facebook page:



Don't know why people are still in doubts.

Cheers!
Irish

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by vinjosep

@Honeybee: Please have a look at the judgement once again (discussed to death in this thread) --> http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/...c%2026511p.txt

The ban is on ALL films/ anything-else-on-the-mirror that is not factory-fitted! And this is where everyone seems to disagee with the court order, i.e. a blanket ban on sunfilms. Had the ban been about non-premissible sunflims, we wouldn't be having a thread with close to 100 rants/ posts about the order.

Further clarification - the factory can only fit tinted (read coloured) glass which comply with the permitted VLT norms. The factory cannot paste films to the glass. Also, my rear windshield clearly says " Minimum VLT 70%" and to the naked eye, it is almost clear and transparent. So, I think that 70% VLT is not something that is going to grant a lot of privacy or anything.

Rajan

[Mindgrinder]

i just read on facebook group that Garware has filed an appeal. However, as Supreme Court is on leave no result might come out before July.

[parsh]

About confusion on RTO approved sunfilms, the only thing that these films or their brochure and packaging proclaim is as visible in the following images saying "is compliant to CMVR 1989" and like this. There is nothing like an RTO approved film having any RTO certification as such. The dealers of the sunfilm state the same saying RTO approved.





IMO these sunfilms and their manufacturers don't stand a chance against the law.

Still, even if we have to respect the order and action upon it, it still seems a half baked one. What if they decide to revert it in future and allow certain films, are they not playing with the people who stand to lose now by removing them and losing their money spent in installing as well un-installing them? My bro peeled sunfilms on the Innova by self inspite of being within limits sunfilms. A friend recently put up 3M sunfilms on the XUV. And already we see so many genuine people who are keen to adhere to law but see the need for the films and are feeling the pinch of the ruling. Also, how impartial it is going to be? We are already hearing stories of politicos opposing the police objections on the sunfilms. If at all this rule is to be enforced, it should be strict across the board for one and all.

[Rock 'n' rollz]

Originally Posted by GTO

- Huge spike in supply & demand of colourless sunfilm.

1. The supreme court order and subsequent instructions from the regional RTO offices are very clear. All sunfilms, whether colored or colorless, are illegal. Period. So not sure why there would be a spike in demand of colorless sunfilms.
2. These sunfilms being colorless would bit the purpose of having privacy etc.

Originally Posted by GTO

- Manufacturers offering darker tints from the factory itself. This could well be a differentiator.

That makes sense too. Manufacturer would offer tinted glasses as an additional feature at a premium. This seems logical as the consumer would anyway be spending some money on after-market sunfilms. Factory fitted tinted glasses would offer better control over the VLT values of tinted glasses.

Originally Posted by parsh

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

Absolutely agree on this one.

[download2live]

They passed the judgment and went on a holiday.
So that they can enjoy while public can see the hard earned money go down the drain.

And the timing of the filing of petition by Garware has me convinced that Mr "AAM AADMI" is just a front for the Industry.

I somehow hope that this so called master stroke somehow bites these industry guys in their back.

I was thinking of grounding my car from 20th onwards. But too bad that I will be needing it on 24th.

Are they checking cars in nights also in NCR?