Vehicle Owners Cannot Be Penalised For Glazing Windows With Plastic Film If They Conform To Stipulated Standards & Specifications: Kerala HC

The Court was considering whether motor vehicle owners using safety glazing complying with the Standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT) as per Rule 100 (amended) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Indian Standards could be subject to penalties. Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules defines the term safety glass.

Justice N Nagaresh held thus:

“Conclusions evolving based on the findings and observations hereinabove is that the State Government or its officials are not legally justified in penalising owners of any motor vehicles, the windscreens or window glasses of which are maintained with “Safety Glass” or “Safety Glazing”, including “Glazing Faced with Plastics” which conforms to the Indian Standard; IS 2553 (Part 2) (First Revision) : 2019 and providing not less than 70% visual transmission of light (VLT) on the windscreen and rear window and 50% visual transmission of light (VLT) on the side windows.”

The first writ petition was filed by a partnership firm that is the distributor of safety glazing. The second petitioner in the first writ petition was a citizen who was imposed with a penalty challan alleging non-compliance of the standards of 'Standards of Visual Transmission of Light' (VLT) for the windscreen or window glasses for his car.

The second writ petition was filed by shopkeepers aggrieved by the issuance of notices by the RTO threatening cancellation of their shop registration for selling vehicle accessories and affixing sun films in motor vehicles causing alteration contrary to Sections 52 and 182A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioners argued that a penalty cannot be imposed upon motor vehicles maintaining the stipulated percentage of VLT using Safety Glazing. Relying upon the Apex Court decision made in Avishek Goenka v Union of India (2012) and in its review, it was argued that Safety Glass with requisite VLT was permissible.

It was also stated that usage of tinted or black films in the glass of vehicles is prohibited and no other additional materials shall be pasted on the Safety Glass.

The Court noted that the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka (supra) dealt with unamended Rule 100. It was amended with effect from April 01, 2021. The Court noted that only Safety Glass was permitted as per Rule 100 before the amendment.

It noted that after the amendment, apart from Safety Glass, usage of Safety Glazing is also permitted if it is in conformity with the Indian standards and permitted VLT specifications.

The Union of India submitted that only the manufactured side windows or windscreen or rear window of a motor vehicle will fall under Rule 100 and film materials cannot be applied on glass surfaces.

The Transport Commissioner submitted that Safety Glass or Safety Glazing for side windows must be installed during the manufacturing of the motor vehicle itself. It was stated that they cannot apply Safety Glazing material after the manufacturing of the vehicle.

It was also submitted that those motor vehicle owners who paste cool films or glazing materials on an already manufactured vehicle were only being penalised.

The Court noted that as per the Global Technical Regulation No.6 and Bureau Of Indian Standards, Safety Glazing encompasses Glazing Faced with Plastics. It noted that this is defined as a glass pane, which can be either toughened glass or laminated glass with a layer of plastic on the inner side.

Further, the Court on interpreting amended Rule 100 stated that owners of motor are not prohibited from applying safety glazing on window glasses or window screens if such safety glazing does not violate the stipulated VLT percentage and is in conformity with the specified Indian standards.

The Court therefore rejected the argument that Safety Glazing can only be applied by the vehicle's manufacturer and cannot be installed by the vehicle owner after the vehicle has been manufactured.

Court said, “The contention of the Transport Commissioner that those who affix cool films or glazing material on an already manufactured “Safety Glass” are only penalised, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. No officer checking a motor vehicle can detect as to whether the layer of plastic (film) of the inner side of the glass pane of toughened or laminated glass is pasted either by the manufacturer or by the owner. Such penalisation therefore would be unsustainable.”

The Court thus clarified that it is illegal to penalize motor vehicle owners who apply Safety Glazing of a permissible material within the stipulated standards and specifications.

As such, the writ petition was disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Advocates D. Kishore, Lakshmi Ramadas, Meera Gopinath

Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel Mini Gopinath, Advocates K.S.Prenjith Kumar, Government Pleader K M Faizal

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23146 OF 2022 & WP(C) NO. 28289 OF 2022

Case Title: M/George & Sons v Union of India & Other Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 574