KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that owners of motor vehicles cannot be penalised for using safety glass or safety glazing. It includes glazing with plastics on the windscreens or window glasses of their vehicles if they comply with stipulated standards and specifications regarding the visual transmission of light.
The standards prescribe not less than 70 per cent visual transmission of light (VLT) on the windscreen, rear window and 50 per cent visual transmission of light (VLT) on the side windows.
The court also quashed the challans issued to the persons, who moved a petition in HC, for using safety glazing as per the prescribed standards.
The court passed the order while disposing of writ petitions filed by a firm engaged in the distribution of safety glazing, owners of shops selling vehicle accessories affixing sun films in motor vehicles and others challenging the action of the motor vehicle department against them.
The Transport Commissioner submitted that the ‘safety glass’ or ‘safety glazing’ for the side window of the motor vehicle is to be manufactured at the time of manufacturing of the motor vehicle. It was also stated that “It is not permissible to paste the “Safety Glazing” material after the vehicle is manufactured and delivered. The window glasses of the vehicle can be manufactured either by ‘safety glass’ or by ‘safety glazing’ material. However, it is not possible to paste a safety glazing material on an already manufactured window glass of the vehicle. Those who affix cool films or glazing materials on an already manufactured ‘safety glass’ are only being proceeded against.
The court observed that 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 whether the layer of plastic film on 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,” it noted.
The court pointed out that if a premium car of high value is permitted to be fitted by the manufacturer with ‘safety glass’ or ‘safety glazing’ within the limit of VLT permissible, then it will be illegal to penalise the owner of a small car of less value, alleging that the permissible material is fixed by himself.
A narrow interpretation of a provision in a manner enabling any punitive action against individuals cannot be made by the court which will jeopardise the right of the individual if there is no actual violation or contravention.