Cases
DECEMBER 2022
Subject of claim:
Refusal to execute the contract of sale, the demand for a refund of the amount paid for the goods, the demand for compensation of the difference between the price of the goods established by the contract and the price of the corresponding goods at the time of satisfaction of such a claim.
Basis of claim:
The presence of vehicle malfunctions that were identified during the warranty period, in connection with which the Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to use the goods during each warranty period for a total of more than thirty days. The defendant acknowledged the presence of a malfunction, the car meets the manufacturer's requirements and has natural wear, which is allowed by the manufacturer.
During operation, the vehicle stalled on the move, and was taken by tow truck to the nearest authorized dealer, where the destruction of the catalyst was established and repairs were carried out under warranty. At the request of the Plaintiff, the dealer performed an endoscopy and revealed the ingress of catalytic converter particles into the combustion chamber as a result of the destruction of the catalytic converter itself. According to the expert's conclusion, this defect is significant, affects the operation of the vehicle and the possibility of its safe use. The defendant also organized and conducted a study of the condition of the internal combustion engine, and, in accordance with the conclusion, there were no malfunctions in the operation of the internal combustion engine of the plaintiff's vehicle. During the trial, the court appointed an expert examination, based on the conclusion of which the court concluded that the identified defect relates to manufacturing defects. By the decision of the court of first instance, the claims were partially satisfied. Disagreeing with the court's decision, the Defendant filed an appeal. The Judicial Board, having studied the case materials, evaluated the new evidence received in the court of appeal, including the conclusion of the repeated forensic auto-technical examination appointed during the consideration of the appeal and the review of this conclusion, as well as the explanations received from experts at the court session, came to the conclusion that there are grounds for the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance and the adoption of a new decision on the refusal to satisfy the claims due to their lack of proof. The plaintiff's arguments about the presence of a significant defect in the disputed car on the grounds indicated in the claim are refuted by the evidence available in the case, which excludes the possibility of recognizing his consumer rights violated and satisfying the stated claims.
The full text of the court ruling can be found here: