Objectivity of amendment in motor vehicle Act
Recently the amendment in the motor vehicle Act have been brought into implementation and if we see the various videos, it is observed that the objectivity might not be for safe road usage and clean environment but something else. The Govt has come out with heavy fines for violations. Would the heavy fines deter the violators to discipline or increase the corrupt business. I will give a recent example wherein the motorist getting pollution checks at Faridabad Pollution Checking Centres were being issued pollution certificate (PUC) without even checking the pollution. Does it serve the purpose of PUC norms or it leads to the unfair business practices. Similar things have been reported in the capital also. The message s were tweeted to the concerned agencies but the practices still continuing unabated believing the amendment leading to increase the corrupt fee to be charged by the concerned by increasing the penalty payable for violations.
Viewed by 833
View all 30 comments Below 30 comments
Virmaniji if its duty of govt only to compel us to follow rules honestly, are we not responsible to be honest in our behavior, why people take a false PUC and don't ask the certificate provider to check the pollution of our vehicle and if found pollution level, high get it repaired. if we are cheating ourselves does it mean that govt. should not make any rules
Sep 15
Sir, I asked him as to why issuing certificate without checking emission. While praising the govt., It was stated that this is how we issue certificates. Why concerned department did not take any action despite tweets. The least it could have done suspension of licence.
Sep 15
Sir, my post was specifically about issuing PUC without even checking pollution emitted by the vehicle. Rules need to be implemented in its spirit. How the rule of carrying PUC without checking pollution is helpful in road safety. I am unable to digest.
Sep 15
It is ridiculous to say that the objective behind new provisions is other than road safety. What the law requires is to have requisite documents and gears before one goes on road with a vehicle and follow prescribed set of rules. Deficiency in system for eg., shortage of PUC centres etc does not entitle one to drive without such certificate. It is not only deficiency of documents for which fine is imposed, exceeding speed limit, rash driving, overloading in commercial vehicles, driving in drunken state etc are other driving/ vehicle related matters where violation of rules invite penalty. The country already faces heavy annual loss of lives and materials including infrastructure due to road accidents. Bad condition of vehicle, violation of rules of driving, driving without license have been major causes of road accidents. Accidents can also be attributed to bad road conditions and other infrastructural deficiency. But the same can not be taken as a ground to criticise provisions of new legislation. If one follows rules, why would he be penalised? It's time that a vehicle owner understands responsibility in driving a vehicle and ensure full compliance with rules. Issue of road infrastructure etc can also be raised simultaneously before authorities/ government but issue of heavy penalty under new act should not be clubbed with this.
Sep 14
Sir, what is the use of carrying a PUC issued without checking the pollution of the vehicle.
Sep 15
PUC malpractices, road conditions, non-functional traffic signals.... all these issues must be raised and resolved in any case. But, how these issues justify traffic violations, is beyond any logic. Only those who enjoy breaking law, will complain of enhanced penalties.
Sep 14
Dear Sir, Can you please explain how you see that objective of amending M.V. Act is not for road safety but something else ? If by chance you make me see what you see, Can you please elucidate what then is that mysterious objective? It is easy for arm chair citizen to make comments but difficult for giving effective suggestions. The increased penalties are not for paying but for avoiding. I guess every one knows how to avoid, i.e. by obeying regulations. 2. You have provided an example of false `PUC" certificates. Some above have even justified that on the grounds of inadequate centers of checking emissions. Does that mean they either never checked `PUC" or have only realized that the centers are inadequate now? The truth is they are happy members of the system of either no `PUC' or false `PUC' for long. Have they tried telling the technician that they want correct result and are prepared to get their engine tuned and retested in the event of `PUC' failure? If you try to be honest, none can persuade to be otherwise. I am 69 year old man driving one vehicle (mechanised) or the other since 1976 but have been fined only twice , once Rs.100/- in Pune and the other time Rs.400/- for 78 kms. speed against 70 kmph limit on NH 5 near Visakhapatnam. 3. Why can't the Citizen give it a try by complying honestly with regulations and penalties rather than complaining?
Sep 14
