[LegalEagle]

Originally Posted by Guna

What about reflashing the software to bump up the power output? This type of changes are not visible but can have consequence on the overall safety.

Extremely difficult to catch and prove - no RTO will go through the headache so no concerns. It is similar to placing a K&N Air Filter.

Originally Posted by pramodkumar

What about tyre changes, or upsizing, example 16" to 17"?
What about lowering springs?
Pramod

Tyre upsizing - no concerns.

Lowering springs - depends how drastic the drop is and if it is clearly visible. Then it becomes a problem. Ideally avoid.

Originally Posted by locusjag

The SC order mentions in Section 52 (Alteration of a vehicle) - "Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories if such change does not exceed two percent of the weightentered in the certificate of registration."
Does that mean that my rooftop luggage carrier weighing probably 20 Kg (which is 1.25% of my TUV's 1.6 tonne dry weight) should be ok and legal even without me notifying the RTO where it is registered? That's what it seems like to me. I am seriously considering paying a lawyer to interpret this order. If I am correct, I will print out this judgement and show it to any cops who stop me for having a luggage carrier atop.

No one will worry about luggage racks. They are too inconsequential to be caught and worried about.

[Zappo]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle

Now comes the tricky parts - minor modifications which DO NOT ALTER THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE can be left away. This means that +1 or +2 tyres, bull bars, front fog light(s) with covers and luggage racks for holiday use. These are not looked upon by either the RTO or the Hon'ble Supreme Court as these are common changes and in some cases are extremely important.

May be what you said is supposed to be so in spirit. But the hard reality of the matter is that these are only interpretation. And in law, unless specifically written down to be so, there is not much value for individual interpretations. With this new ruling by SC, the police at local levels can now arm themselves to extract money from you very easily. If tomorrow they catch you for putting a +2 sized tyre or a fog light on your car he can legally penalize you, irrespective of how we wish to interpret the law.

As a matter of fact, exactly an year ago the MORTH had sent a missive to all state governments to start taking stern action on all those who fit bullbars on their vehicles. So as you can see, these are mere interpretations of the law and what holds good in one locale may not be so kosher elsewhre.

[tilt]

Could this be a pre-emptive measure to prevent people from discovering and executing methods to disable the 80 kph and 120 kph beep warnings?

Cheers

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle

Apologies in advance for the long post, however, as a lawyer, let me quickly clarify some points:

Motor Vehicle Act requirements:
1. Any modification from the original stock structure needs to be approved by the RTO - this includes additional fog lights, bull bars, light bars, color and/or engine modifications, exhaust modifications, changes in number of seats and/or doors and/or windows.

I have a question or two please.

1. How many headlights can be fitted? Ex : Thar comes with 2, can we add another 2 with the same bulb wattage 55/60? - considering that I have them aligned as per the headlight alignment chart.

There are many vehicles that have 4 headlamp reflectors and both are active during high beam, hence the question.

2. Can this fitting be approved by RTO?

Thanks in advance everyone for your help!

[aaggoswami]

This judgement will impact a lot of businesses and also have a wide spread impact on insurance claims. Forget everything else, how can even the manufacturers sell accessories ? Like fog lamps, what if a Swift LXi owner gets fog lamp fitted via dealer, will it be called illegal ? Worst is tyre upgrade being considered as illegal. Am running my Swift VXi on wider rubber since the car was one month old. The quality of OEM tyres was as absurd as possible.

With such blanket ban, if one installed Philips Xtreme vision bulbs of same Wattage as stock and God forbid, if he/she needs an insurance claim, the insurance firm can flatly say that car bulbs were changed. To make their claim valid, they can come up with light output in terms of lumens and say original specs changed ?

Not sure if there will be amendments or not, but they are definitely needed. This blanket rule is bereft of logic while not helping businesses either.

[drivetoseeindia]

Let me share my experience from Delhi NCR:

a) Rooftop carrier is not allowed in private vehicle. I have been fined at Delhi Airport for having luggage on top of my Scorpio. However, it was never noticed for months on NCR roads and highways when it was empty but got stopped when I had few suitcases on it packed with a nylon rope. I mean, it was visible.

Incidentally, I got the carrier fitted from Mahindra showroom only at the time of delivery.

Later I checked with RTO and luggage carrier is allowed on commercial vehicles and they too have to get that endorsed on RC. I asked for the MV Rule number that describes this but could not get a definitive answer.

b) Front bull guard were being caught and being removed few months back. As front guard may prevent air bag to function at time of a crash, I know an insurance case that was denied due to front guard.

As per RTO, gross vehicle weight is mentioned in RC. Extra guard will increase that. Hence, so.

c) Modified head lamps are illegal if low beam is more than 55W. Definition is on Watt [Halogen bulb time
rule] and not on lumen or temperature. So, major and hazardous changes like upgrade to LED are not caught easily.

regards,

[LegalEagle]

Note to Mods: Wanted to quote a number of OP's but would have made the post too long, so taking reference in the Post.

I have noticed a number of posts indicating that the SC judgement is subject to individual interpretation leading to issues, are specific changes valid amongst others, so wanted to clarify the same again:

The Hon'ble SC judgement prohibits structural changes to the vehicle. This means that you are altering the structure i.e. primarily, the body structure, chassis, axles, engine bay areas, fitment of bull bars and to an extent, the way in which the seating positions of the vehicle.

It does not affect "minor" modifications which are already permitted and/or looked upon i.e., luggage racks being used reasonably, reasonable fog lights/LED bars which are not used in city limits, light bulb modifications, tyre size changes, and color changes approved and registered with RTO.

With this difference, we need not be worried about replacement of standard bulbs with LED's (as it is not present in RTO records), fitment of fog lights (ideally a reasonable number, not 8 - 10 on a Scorpio), luggage racks (which are only for recreational purposes) color changes (need to be approved by RTO as it is in RTO records), tyre size changes (not visible to the naked eye, unless to place tractor sized tyres on your sedan ) and to an extent, seating changes (as long as you do not change the overall vehicle structure by increasing the length). This would not be subject to interpretation as these are aspects which cannot be easily checked and validated against records, which may or may not exist.

However, on structural changes, as listed above, there is no interpretation present. It is easily visible and will be caught.

Now, if a vehicle with modifications is indeed caught, it needs to be deregistered with cancellation of RC, and seizure of the vehicle. Anyone who is from the NCR region knows how that has been implemented.

We need to understand one aspect - the government and associated authorities will implement the laws as far as practically possible. As a lawyer, I make this statement confidently - if laws are implemented to its truest intent, down to the comma and fullstop, none of us are going to be able to do 75% of the things which we do. Some deviations will always be permitted, and the government and to an extent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also knows about it.

So in my view, the normal changes which we BHpians do will not cause issues. However, if any BHpian is making color or engine swaps, please get the same endorsed on the RC. On structural changes such as changing the number of doors, axles or the overall vehicle dimensions, please avoid completely, unless such vehicle will never be used on public streets.

So please enjoy within legal limits.

[Samba]

I don't know why the Indian government is against car enthusiasts!

First a tax capping above 1.2L engines!
Then the sub 4 meter chapter.
Followed by scrapping of diesel vehicles when they are 10 years old and petrol vehicles when they are 15 years old!
Now modification is illegal.

They must come out with a rule like, for modifying a vehicle the owner needs to get the RC book endorsed from the RTO or something similar which will make the car road legal.

Suppose a person buys a Mahindra Thar, just imagine the consequences he will face! He cant upgrade the tires for off-roading or do other basic modification's for his need!

[ramji_or]

Wow! Then each and every vehicle that belong to a South Indian politician has to be deemed illegal (mentioned only South India because I am a poor soul, who is unaware of the trends in North India to decorate a politician's vehicle). With bull bars, slew of aux lamps, horn mods, flag posts, party leader pictures (now they have gone digital on this) on the windshield and what not.

And haven't we experienced PM/CM/Ministers security convoy, Guards hanging out of the car on the footstep accessory risking their lives to save the same of our beloved administrators. With this ban, won't it be affecting those black cats capability to protect such high profile people?

Jokes apart, with ever increasing fuel prices (oh! the trend is opposite in the last 3 weeks, but we should not get ahead of ourselves and should wait till May 2019 to comment) and manufacturers on the race of for achieving extra-ordinary fuel efficiency numbers, most of the cars/bikes in the Indian market is severely under-tyred. So this ban extending to the tyre upsize is definitely defeating the purpose of its own.

IMO, SC cannot and should not issue any such blanket ban and instead should advise the Central body for road safety (if exists) to come up with safe/permissible numbers, for each and every parameter of a vehicle that could impact the safety of the road transport ecosystem.

[RedStallion]

Originally Posted by Samba

I don't know why the Indian government is against car enthusiasts!

They must come out with a rule like, for modifying a vehicle the owner needs to get the RC book endorsed from the RTO or something similar which will make the car road legal.

I am really frustrated to see such policies. Moreover, the consistency in the policies is always missing.

Do we also need to get approval for illuminated scuff plates in the car?

O.T: Even today, I believe OEMs are unclear about upcoming EV policies.

[AirWind]

Just go to know...bummer!

Soon, you could be fined for modifying your car or bike. The Supreme Court has ruled that any changes to a vehicle’s original specifications — including tyre size, modified exhausts (which change the decibel and emission output), and additional spoilers — are illegal, Financial Express reports.

https://www.financialexpress.com/aut...-know/1439456/


That means the transport authorities are likely to cancel the registration of vehicles whose structures have been tinkered with. But changes to color and minor fitments would be permitted, Times of India reports.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/67463498.cms

[NiInJa]

I have some serious questions on some members mentioning that Luggage rack addition is not a problem.

Last I heard from a guy who owns a travel business is that addition of luggage rack needs RTO approval and a vehicle can be immediately confiscated by Police (at their own discretion) if they are not able to produce the approval. Hence they ask customers if they need a vehicle with or without luggage rack before hand.

Also, in my personal opinion, RTO approval should be needed for Luggage racks as it is potentially dangerous for others on the road if the luggage is not properly attached. Also, it does change the CG of the vehicle when loaded.

[Romins]

What about bicycle racks?

[sdaityari]

Originally Posted by CaptainPrice

However, we, The Citizens of the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India, solemnly swear that we will find a way to continue to persevere in these hard times and Stick It To The Man.

Cheers!

I wonder why complete bans are even considered in our country. Anything you ban - people have a habit of finding a workaround.

In fact, I feel that a ban gets unnecessary attention to a topic.

[bharatbits]

I was seriously considering buying art leather seats for my Linea which came with fabric seats. I think i must wait now to see the implications of this judgement.

Jokes apart, rather than just saying zero mods permitted it would be nice if SC comes up with a list of permissible and non permissible mods. That list should take into consideration the safety aspect of the said mods and keep updating the list from time to time.

For eg bull bars are indeed a hazard because in case of minor crashes they hurt the animal or person badly. There's a reason why bumpers are made of fibre and not metal like the rest of the body. Also, they prevent airbag deployment.

Head lamp upgrades are indeed a safety hazard as they blind the oncoming traffic.

Basically, any modification that could pose a safety hazard to yourself or others on the road must be banned and such violations must be fined.