Subject of claim:

To recover from the Defendant the cost of repair of identified defects in the car purchased from the Defendant under the contract of sale.

Basis of claim:

In connection with the breakdown of the car, the Plaintiff turned to the official dealer, who indicated the reason for the request in the order: "Automatic transmission diagnostics + reset adaptations. Autorun does not work, no power increase." In addition, the dealer indicated the detection of partial destruction of the lower part of the upper catalytic converter. The alleged reason for the destruction of the lower part of the active mass is the introduction of changes in the design of the vehicle in the form of installation of gas equipment not certified by the manufacturer; malfunctions resulting from the use of non–original equipment and installed in an unauthorized service center are not covered by the manufacturer's warranty. The official dealer refused to repair the warranty.

According to the conclusion of the specialist the Plaintiff addressed to, the destruction of the lower section of the catalytic converter in the exhaust manifold and clogging of the catalytic converter in the exhaust pipe were detected in the car, the cause of which is a factory defect of the catalytic converter in the exhaust manifold. Considers the refusal to repair illegal, since the car is equipped with certified gas cylinder equipment, the installation of which was carried out in an authorized service center.

After listening to the participants in the process, examining the circumstances of the case according to the evidence presented by the parties and evaluating them in aggregate, the court concludes that the Plaintiff violated the requirements of the Car's Operating Manual prohibiting any modification of the car, including changing engine parts or exhaust control system. The consumer was warned that such modifications may adversely affect the performance, safety or reliability of the car and, in addition, may violate the terms of the limited warranty on the car, but the relevant requirements were violated by the Plaintiff.

Thus, taking into account the establishment of a violation by the consumer of the rules for the operation of the car in terms of violating the prohibition on modification of its design – installation of gas cylinder equipment in a service center that is not an official dealer, there are grounds for releasing the seller and the manufacturer from liability.
The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claims for the protection of consumer rights.

The full text of the judicial act can be found here:
https://belgorodsky--blg.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=case&case_id=173120458&case_uid=59dfaa90-c483-4d4b-935d-6a032dd56144&delo_id=1540005