SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44539

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MR. N. NAGARESH, J
M/s.GEORGE & SONS, 1ST FLOOR, SULTHAN CHAMBERS, PARAMARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682018, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER-M.K. MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23146 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 28289 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.K. MUHAMMED, D.KISHORE, LAKSHMI RAMADAS, MEERA GOPINATH, P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For the Respondents: SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC, SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, SRI.K.M.FAIZAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.M.SHAJNA

State authorities cannot penalize vehicle owners for compliance with safety glazing standards specified within the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

Headnote:(A) Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 100 - Safety Glazing standards - State Government officials are not authorized to penalize vehicle owners for maintaining safety glazing conforming to prescribed VLT, as users of safety glazing within specifications are exempt from fines. (Paras 1, 33)

(B) Legal Interpretation - The amendment to Rule 100 allows both safety glass and safety glazing, making it unsustainable for authorities to impose penalties based on materials not installed by the manufacturer, as long as compliance with specifications is upheld. (Paras 3, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged penalties imposed for purported violations regarding visual transmission standards as detailed in Rule 100, asserting compliance with applicable safety glazing standards.

Findings of Court:
The court found that penalties were improperly imposed on vehicle owners meeting the required standards for safety glazing.

Issues: The main issues included whether the State Government could impose penalties on vehicle owners maintaining safety glazing that conformed to visual transmission standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that recent amendments permit safety glazing if compliant with specified VLT standards, thus ruling against imposing fines on compliant vehicle owners.

Result: The challans issued against the petitioners are illegal and unsustainable in law. Ext.P8 is quashed.

Table of Content
1. authorization of state to penalize vehicle owners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. specification for safety glazing regulation compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. refinement on usage of safety glass and amendment interpretations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. manufacturer obligations regarding compliance certifications. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. legal right to use safety glazing without punitive measures. (Para 24 , 27 , 28)

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The question arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the State Government in the Departments of Police or Motor Vehicles are legally authorised to penalise owners of motor vehicles who are maintaining the “Standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT)” as specified under Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('CMV Rules', for short) as amended with effect from 01.04.2021, by using “Safety Glazing”

conforming to the standards stipulated under the Indian Standard; IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019.

2. In W.P.(C) No.23146/2022, the 1st petitioner is a Partnership Firm. The 1st petitioner is the sole distributor for the State of Kerala for products manufactured by M/s.Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The 2nd petitioner is a citizen who was imposed with a fine of ₹250/- as per Ext.P8 challan issued by the 5th respondent-AMVI, alleging non-compliance of the standards of VLT for the wind screen or window glasses of his vehicle (motor car) bearing registration No.KL-39M-7002.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28289 of 2022 are aggrieved by the action of the Regional Transport Officer in issuing notices threatening cancellation of their registration on the ground that their shops are selling vehicle accessories and affixing sun films in motor vehicles causing alteration, in violation of Sections 52 and 182A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

4. Rule 100 of the CMV Rules as it stood prior to substitution effected from 01.04.2021 as per Ext.P4 Notification, was as follows:

“100.Safety glass:

(1) The windscreen and window glass of every motor vehicle including agriculture tractor fitted with cabin, construction equipment vehicle fitted with cabin and combine harvester shall be made of safety glass or safety glazing material:

Provided that in L5 category vehicles (three wheelers) and vehicles with hood and side coves, the window glass may be made of acrylic or plastic transparent sheet.

Explanation - For the purposes of this rule,-

(i) safety glass or safety glazing means the materials confirming to IS 2553 (Part 2)

(Revision 1): 2019;

(ii) windscreen and window glass of motor vehicle, the inner surface of which is at an angle more than thirty degrees to longitudinal axis of the vehicles, shall be deemed to face to the front.

(2) The safety glass or safety glazing of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be so manufactured to provide not less than seventy percent visual transmission of light and it shall conform to Indian Standard IS 2553 (Part 2) (Revision 1): 2019 as amended from time to time.

(3) The safety glass or safety glazing used for side windows of every motor vehicle shall be so manufactured to provide not less than fifty percent visual transmission of light and it shall conform to Indian Standards IS 2553 (Part 2) (Revision 1): 2019 as amended from time to time.

(3-A) The owner of every motor vehicle shall maintain the visual transmission of light through safety glass or safety glazing as specified in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3).

(3-B) The glass of the front wind screen of a combine harvester shall be made of laminated safety glass.

(3-C) In cases where any manufacturer has complied with the provisions of this rule as they exist till the 31st March, 2021, such manufacturer may continue to do so till the 31st March, 2022, and in that situation it shall be presumed as if the provisions of clause (b) of rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2020, come into force, on the 1st April, 202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top