Russia (bbabo.net), - The Supreme Court clarified under what faults you can return the car to the manufacturer and get the money paid for it. And also to demand compensation for losses caused due to the sale of goods of inadequate quality. This is reported by the portal Pravo.ru.

A certain citizen Sagaryan bought a brand new car for 3 million rubles back in 2017. She safely drove it for almost two years, but then problems began to arise. The additional battery, the heating of the right front seat, the high beam headlights, the rear and front right headlights stopped working, the sealing gum on the right doors came off, there were "kicks" in the automatic transmission. The car owner turned to the dealer because the malfunctions occurred during the warranty period. And the dealer fixed the problem.

But less than a month later, everything started again. Past problems returned, and besides, the climate system fan stopped turning on. This time, Sagaryan turned to the manufacturer with a demand to return the money paid for the car and with an indication that the shortcomings corrected during the warranty repair reappeared. The manufacturer examined the car, confirmed the presence of the listed faults. But he indicated that there were no grounds for terminating the sale and purchase agreement, since, according to the results of checking the signs of materiality, the detected shortcomings were not noted.

Then the owner of the car sued. The district court ordered an autotechnical examination. She confirmed the presence of all identified deficiencies. But she pointed out that the listed malfunctions are removable and are not included in the list of malfunctions and conditions under which the operation of vehicles is prohibited.

The court denied the lady's claim, citing the fact that no evidence of significant flaws in the car was presented, the flaws identified during operation can be eliminated and do not interfere with the operation of the vehicle. The appellate and cassation courts agreed with this conclusion.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this decision. He recalled that according to the preamble of the law on the protection of consumer rights, a significant defect of a product is an unrecoverable defect. Or a deficiency that cannot be eliminated without disproportionate costs or time, or is detected repeatedly, or reappears.

He also recalled the resolution of the 2012 plenum of the Supreme Court, which clarifies what is considered a significant drawback, in which a technically complex product can be returned to the manufacturer. In particular, it states that one of them is a defect that reappears after its elimination.

The Supreme Court pointed out that in order to conclude that there is a significant defect in a technically complex product, the court must establish that they were detected in the product more than once (more than once). Or the product has the same defect, which is repeated after taking measures to eliminate it.

Thus, the presence of a defect in a technically complex product that reappears after its elimination can be an independent basis for the consumer to return such a product to the manufacturer or importer and demand a refund of the amount paid for it.

A defect that reappears after it has been eliminated may be an independent reason for returning the goods to the manufacturer

The District Court did not consider the issue of the materiality of these shortcomings on the basis of the repetition of their manifestation. And he limited himself only to clarifying questions about the possibility of their elimination and the presence or absence of a ban on the operation of a car with the indicated shortcomings. Thus, he incorrectly applied the law, the Supreme Court pointed out. And the courts of appeal and cassation did not correct his mistakes.

Therefore, the Supreme Court canceled all these decisions and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate instance.

bbabo.Net