[1.2TSI7DSG]

The first intent behind this ruling was to ensure that Bolero is not passed off as a Mercedes G class. Imagine you meet with a hit and run incident with such a car, what would you report? Trust me half of the people outside this forum will not look beyond the logos (most of them will claim it to be a Mercedes Jeep and not even an ID on the model).

The second intent of the rule was how do you go and ensure conformance to the CMVR rules for which the Automakers go and invest into the technology to meet the standards. A BMW with a modified exhaust system: a- it does not meet the sound requirements & b - it removes majority of the stuff which protects the environment.

It might make sense to do away with all norms and the stupid useless PUC tests which over time are just a tick mark and don't mean anything.

Given this, I am sure this will be executed in a very stupid way.

God save the petrol heads!

[One:1]

can someone please shed some light on running the following,

1. Alloys on a car that came with steel rims(same size and width)
2.Running a 35w projector setup on a car that came with a 60/55w halogen reflector.
3. Addition of an LED DRL inside the headlight

There still seems to be a very grey area on what "minor modifications" classify as.
Can someone please shed some light on the same?

Also, Way to kill the automotive sector, especially for enthusiasts

[sdaityari]

Originally Posted by One:1

There still seems to be a very grey area on what "minor modifications" classify as.

I sincerely hope these "minor" modifications are allowed. However, even if they are allowed, I guess we will be at the mercy of the interpretation of the traffic police.

[SPIKE ARRESTOR]

I'm very happy with this judgment, although not sure how they are going to implement it properly.

In Germany, I've seen people doing mods, but the point is, if after doing the mods, they can prove (to TÜV) that the vehicle still complies with the prevalent law, then they are allowed to use the car with modification. The modification also needs to be entered and documented in the vehicle papers. If the vehicle does not comply with the regulations (after the mods), then it is deemed NOT FIT to ply on public roads.

E.g. of "minor" modifications, tyre upgrade from HT to MT. What changes --> rolling resistance, what does rolling resistance effect - fuel consumption / CO2 emission. Now how do they prove if the modification is not complying with CMVR after the mod?

Spike

[fiestarry]

I am fully in support of such rules and their effective implementation. It is typical that even before such a rule is put into effect, there will be an exaggerated outcry by some. They will criticize and ridicule it by mentioning the outlawing of even a minor upsize of tyres.
On the other hand, when some souped up SUV with dubious tyres and unproven aftermarket brakes plows into a crowd after losing control, these critics will turn lawmakers and decrie the lack of effective policing... and even how a rope and a tree would be the best punishment for the driver.
It is improbable that minor changes can be detected at a glance and if they will be penalized. It is not possible to mention each minor mod that is acceptable in the rule book. It will be discretionary and implemented by the servants of the government employed by your democratically elected government.

[dark.knight]

Requesting the " "honorable" " Supreme Court to scan several YouTube channels of Indians, most notorious of them all, found in Dilli, to see how vehicles are desecrated, fixed with poorly aligned halogens, LEDs, fitted with 20 speakers, high-noise emitting horns etc and immediately take the offenders and the suppliers of said accessories to task, round up Karol Bagh and parade em I say!

That apart, this is another judgement that will never see light of day in terms of practicality, and instead might affect the few innocent, law-abiding people who simply want to install harmless items like PU seats, rain-guards etc.

[FrodoOfTheShire]

Let's not get too worked up about this! Implementation of laws such as these are usually non-existent unless you're really unlucky. I still see vehicles running with bull bars in the city without any crackdown. My uncle (who's a complete novice with regards to automobiles) bought a Brezza few months back and immediately took it to an accessory shop post delivery. The accessories guy confidently convinced my uncle and fit a bull bar to the Brezza. Another example, recently I renewed the PUC certificate for my bike and that guy just completed the formalities without actually checking the exhaust. When I questioned him, he said its a relatively new bike, so shouldn't be any problem.

[anjan_c2007]

Quite a logical ruling, that has upheld the provisions of the MV Act and the CMV Rules, reading between the lines and asserting the importance of various Sections and sub Sections that deal with impermissible alterations and modifications to a registered motor vehicle. The ruling has not strcuk down any such Section or sub Section as ultra vires.

The factual situation is that there are thousands of altered and modified motor vehicles which are running legally (produced before, tested and certified by the RTO) and illegally (not produced before, tested and certified by the RTO) across the length and breadth of the country, sometimes dangerously. If an owner has a problem with the RTO of a particular state, he or she has accessibility through brokers to the RTO of a neighbouring or any other state, where the papers can be duly certified and legalised at a cost.

The RTO is technically authorised to check such modified and altered motor vehicles plying on the streets under its jurisdiction. The traffic police are not technically well qualified to detect such modifications, unless these are glaring and perceptible (like illegal stretch limos , super-extended chassis of commercial vehicles and so on). And most of the States and Union Territories have under staffed RTO offices, where personnel are lesser in numbers than the envisaged official strength. The recruitment bans in most states prohibit the respective Transport Commissioner's office to fill up vacant posts (due to death, resignation or retirement). Hence, due to understaffing and other priorities, they are unable to conduct such routine checkings in most cases.

Corruption in many of the RTO offices is also a great setback for the smooth implementation of the Supreme Court judgment, as it's the RTO which enforces the law in this matter. So it's anyone guess as to where we stand today and in future, as things are not going to get better !

[ashwin1224]

It will probably be enforced as strictly as the sunfilm ban, or prohibition of stickers on the rear windows. So I doubt there is anything to really cry about, apart from the fact that now the cops have one more Avenue to extract a fine if there is nothing else to penalize.

Also, what about interior modifications? Can I change my seat covers legally? Install ambient lights? And what happens to RV converted vans? How legal are those?

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by sdaityari

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

They are forced to find workarounds because in many cases, total bans are ridiculous/impracticable, and often misdirected, counterproductive, knee-jerk efforts, fruit of under-informed / ignorant lawmakers / law enforcers. I remember when the city of Bangalore, in one brilliant example, banned the use of headlights - all headlights - at night instead of holding people accountable who refused to dip their headlights at night. Insane!!!

Originally Posted by NiInJa

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.

So you seriously believe that some extra red-tape and the tedious process of obtaining the paper stamp/signature of some official is going to help ensure that for the entire life of that car, luggage is always going to be fastened securely to the rack? I don't see any connection whatsoever. Unless you've got to apply and get inspection after loading it each time, before heading onto the road (let's please not do that)!!!

Instead, why not make sure the the law is clear as to the necessity to properly secure luggage, and strictly hold people accountable IF they fail to do so. And especially if they ever cause an accident thereby. Let the negligent party actually be penalized by the law, not responsible persons.

The endless formalities without accountability, along with a general attitude of "ban it, whatever it is" are almost never going to have positive real-world effects.

Out here in Mizoram they've got very professional conversions that make pickups into mini-tippers. Excellent solution for narrow little hill-lanes, where full-sized tippers can't enter. And more efficient for smaller loads obviously. Why ban something like this unless there is evidence that they are actually causing accidents or are poorly built??? In fact they are probably safer than alternatives (trying to force too-large vehicles onto small roads, or blocking traffic for long periods as pickups are manually unloaded). Wisdom looks at the big picture and particulars both.

What of Ambulances? Food-vending vans? As earlier mentioned, campers?

Why shouldn't local authorities be considered qualified to evaluate such things, within their unique contexts?

-Eric

[Starfire]

So if I add rear disc brakes to my vehicle cause i want to feel safe and confident with my brakes especailly with emergency braking, the SC wont allow it, yet they allow these cars which fail badly in the NCAP safety standards with 0 and 1 star to be driven on the road?

Also they won't allow us to put a good headlight set up but will ignore that fact that majority of our roads fail to have any lighting at night and are plagued with pot holes especially in the rains?

Feels like sometimes in the name of safety, we are actually ending up feeling unsafe. . To be honest I feel there should be some exceptions to the whole modification criteria stated by the SC. Atleast when it comes to safety modifications.

[Blooming Flower]

Originally Posted by SPIKE ARRESTOR

I'm very happy with this judgment, although not sure how they are going to implement it properly. ..
Spike

I wonder how Mahindra managed to pass all CMVR and ARAI regulation by officially offering Thar Daybreak or Wanderlust edition! Perhaps, you can throw some light about this.

[littlebrother]

What about limited edition from the manufacturer itself, life for example Skoda Rapid Edition X/ Monte Carlo ?
In RC book they're mentioned as Skoda Rapid Style Red/white colour and that's it. But the vehicle comes with blackened roof, mirrors boot spoilers and alloys which are done at manufacture/dealer level but not mentioned so in the RC book.

[jayguar]

What if the type of vehicle is given wrongly in the RC? For example, in my Brio RC, its given as sedan and car class is given as Honda City Brio.

[Tanmay K]

I see people are mentioning luggage racks are apparently fine. No, they aren't. A couple of covered or uncovered fog lights? No, they aren't. Technically they are not, and that's all that matters to the cops.

Luggage racks are only legal in the country for commercial vehicles. If a cop feels like "fining" you, this is precisely what they state along with the amount for the same: something around 5k. I know a lot of people install roof racks and most cops probably don't care about it, but depending on your city you will eventually run into one who will pull you over for those.

I guess it's obvious how I know this.

Originally Posted by jayguar

What if the type of vehicle is given wrongly in the RC? For example, in my Brio RC, its given as sedan and car class is given as Honda City Brio.

You can get this rectified if you prefer, although I seriously doubt any cop will ever bother you about that.