9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Not every car owner comes to the Supreme Court seeking justice. But if this happens, his case will help other motorists assert their legal rights – including in
The story, which the sun recently put an end to, began to reverse in the spring of 2019, when a resident of Yaroslavl named Semyon Teryaev bought a car. A brand new passenger car at that time cost quite money – almost 800,000 rubles. LLC Avtofirma Svetlana acted as a seller, the car was covered by a three-year manufacturer’s warranty. In October 2020, the driver’s seat upholstery was worn out and the car owner turned to the dealer to rectify the factory defect. There were no problems: the problem was solved for free for the owner, and for the company the issue price was less than 3,000 rubles. But a year later, in November 2021, the story of the worn-out chair repeated itself.
This so upset Mr. Teryaev that he demanded that the dealer replace the faulty car with a new one. He declined and offered the fighter one more time to plug the gaps for free. The car owner was not satisfied with such an exit and went to court: in the lawsuit he demanded from the defendant compensation in the amount of 214,829 rubles, a fine for non-compliance with consumer demands for the replacement of goods of insufficient quality, compensation for moral damage of 50,000 rubles, a fine of 50% of the amount awarded by the court, 25,000 rubles spent by the plaintiff on the payment of legal services, as well as his expenses for state rights in the amount of 7392 rubles . The hearing on the case took place in February 2022 in the Leninsky District Court of Yaroslavl.
The court of first instance took into account that the malfunction in the case requires minimal costs to eliminate and does not affect the ability to fully control the car, and therefore Teryaev rejected his claims to Svetlana. Finally, after passing the appellate bodies, the case reached the Supreme Court under number 8-KG23−2-K2.
The Collegium of the Supreme Court of Civil Affairs considered it and decided that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law “Protection of Consumer Rights”, if defects are found in a product, a citizen has the right to demand its replacement by an article of the same brand (same model and/or article).
The presence of a defect in a technically complex product that reappears during the warranty period after taking measures to remedy it is an independent basis for meeting the requirement to replace it with a comparable product. of the Council.
The highest court considered that the possibility of remedying the lack of the car and the absence of a possible driving ban have no legal significance. As a result, the Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back to Yaroslavl for reconsideration. And this whole story means that if a “teething disease” in the form of repeated breakdowns occurs in a car during the warranty period, now the car owner can almost automatically receive exactly the same new car from the dealer and still get a significant amount of money back. compensation – strictly within the framework of the law “Protection of Consumer Rights”.
The story, which the sun recently put an end to, began to reverse in the spring of 2019, when a resident of Yaroslavl named Semyon Teryaev bought a car. A brand new passenger car at that time cost quite money – almost 800,000 rubles. LLC Avtofirma Svetlana acted as a seller, the car was covered by a three-year manufacturer’s warranty. In October 2020, the driver’s seat upholstery was worn out and the car owner turned to the dealer to rectify the factory defect. There were no problems: the problem was solved free of charge for the owner, and for the company the issue price was less than 3,000 rubles. But a year later, in November 2021, the story of the worn-out chair repeated itself.
This so upset Mr. Teryaev that he demanded that the dealer replace the faulty car with a new one. He declined and offered the fighter one more time to plug the gaps for free. The car owner was not satisfied with such an exit and went to court: in the lawsuit he demanded from the defendant compensation in the amount of 214,829 rubles, a fine for non-compliance with consumer demands for the replacement of goods of insufficient quality, compensation for moral damage of 50,000 rubles, a fine of 50% of the amount awarded by the court, 25,000 rubles spent by the plaintiff on the payment of legal services, as well as his expenses for state rights in the amount of 7392 rubles . The hearing on the case took place in February 2022 in the Leninsky District Court of Yaroslavl.
The court of first instance took into account that the malfunction in the case requires minimal costs to eliminate and does not affect the ability to fully control the car, and therefore Teryaev rejected his claims to Svetlana. Finally, after passing the appellate bodies, the case reached the Supreme Court under number 8-KG23−2-K2.
The Collegium of the Supreme Court of Civil Affairs considered it and decided that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law “Protection of Consumer Rights”, if defects are found in a product, a citizen has the right to demand its replacement by an article of the same brand (same model and/or article).
The presence of a defect in a technically complex product that reappears during the warranty period after taking measures to remedy it is an independent basis for meeting the requirement to replace it with a comparable product. of the Council.
The highest court considered that the possibility of remedying the lack of the car and the absence of a possible driving ban have no legal significance. As a result, the Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back to Yaroslavl for reconsideration. And this whole story means that if a “teething disease” in the form of repeated breakdowns occurs in a car during the warranty period, now the car owner can almost automatically receive exactly the same new car from the dealer and still get a significant amount of money back. compensation – strictly within the framework of the law “Protection of Consumer Rights”.
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
