As we know, previously, there are a lot of talks about the implementations of rules for car more than 15 years old to go for Puspakom inspection. If not mistaken, everyone is complaining on this implementation that the proposal is put on hold now.
There are a lot of cars on the road that isn't physically fit to be on the road. The Puspakom inspection can helps to prevent bad accident from happening and save lifes. However, those car isn't necessary to be more than 15 years old. It all depends on the driver itself. My opinion is that, it takes 10 years to maintain a car to be in good condition but it takes only 1 year to spoil your car. If the drivers is a heavy car user but didn't bother to do the routine car checking or servicing, then the car doesn't have to be 15 years to be not fit. Am I right? So back to the point, is it relevant that cars more than 15 years must go for Puspakom Inspection? DD say NO.
OK, another point. If the car go for Puspakom inspection and they approve it to be safe. Days later, the owner and the car met an accident which is cause by the car malfunction. Will Puspakom be responsible and bear all the cost instead of the insurance? I don't think anyone would be able to claim them if this happens. So, what's the use of bringing the car there, pass the inspection and later, there's no guarantee or anything? Again, DD say NO!
For some of us, RM50-RM200 is just a flexible amount to spend. But for some, this may means their monthly expenses on food, groceries, etc. Bringing the car to Puspakom will not be zero cost. Let say Puspakom inspection is RM50 and the follow up (repair, etc just to pass the inspection) is RM150. So total is RM200. Can those lower income group bear the cost? All they want is to use the car to buy some groceries but to do that, they have to get the car approved by Puspakom. Isn't this a burden to them? Might as well back to the stone age, walking on foot to get some groceries.There's already plenty of things to pay for car (road tax, car insurance, servicing, routine car checking, parking ticket, etc) and now another list to add on? So, DD say NOT RELEVANT!!
It is up to us whether we are accident cautious or not. If we have the awareness, we don't need this implementation to kick our butt to get an inspection for our car. If we are a good driver that maintained the car, there's no need for it too. It all depends on the user. If Gov are to enforce this law, I hope there's some subsidy or assurance given by Puspakom that we, the consumer would benefited it.
Will Puspakom gives an assurance and we, the user are able to claim them should there's accident due to the car malfunction??