AutoBeta Home News New Vehicle Industry Report Data Report Industrial Economy

In addition to Weibo, there is also WeChat

Please pay attention

WeChat public account

AutoBeta

1.05 million RMB Mercedes-Benz nameplate counterfeiting? The owner of the car told four companies that they were rejected for a refund of one for three.

2024-11-17 Update From: AutoBeta autobeta NAV: AutoBeta > News >

Share

AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)08/25 Report--

It was a pleasure to mention a new car, but Mr. Liu of Jiaozuo was so angry that the Mercedes-Benz GLS45 he bought for 1.05 million turned out to be a car with a "story"! In a fit of anger, Mr. Liu took the car 4S store and other four companies to court, what happened in the end?

According to Mr. Liu, he bought a 1.05 million Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 off-road vehicle at Huixing Automobile 4S store in Henan Province in 2018. At that time, the license plate of Jiaozuo DMV was issued, but it was told that many parts of the car had been replaced, and it was suspected of forging nameplates and not going through the vehicle registration formalities.

UC截图20190825113704.png

After understanding, it is found that the car nameplate says April 2017, while the actual production time of the car is May 2016.

UC截图20190825113716.png

UC截图20190825113739.png

This makes Mr. Liu very confused, there is also a situation of fraud? So the media followed Mr. Liu to the 4S store to learn about the situation, and the sales manager of the 4S store said he was also a victim.

The sales manager explained that only the frame number, formalities, certificates, customs orders, one-time boarding and boarding inspection of the vehicle were checked, and the production date of the vehicle was rarely checked.

After many fruitless negotiations with Mercedes-Benz 4S store, Mr. Liu sued Henan Huixing Automobile sales Co., Ltd., Tianjin Xuzhijun International Trade Co., Ltd., Dalian Onis Automobile sales Co., Ltd. And Tianjin Yuanda United Automobile Trading Group Co., Ltd.

UC截图20190825113749.png

At 3: 00 p.m. on August 22, the people's Court of the liberated areas accepted the case.

Mr. Liu's attorney believes that the Mercedes-Benz off-road vehicle purchased by Mr. Liu was purchased by Henan Huixing Automobile sales Company from Tianjin Xuzhijun International Trading Co., Ltd. Dalian Onis Automobile sales Co., Ltd. issued a false "mandatory Product Identification vehicle Conformance Certificate" and "Light gasoline Environmental Protection Information list" for the vehicle.

UC截图20190825113810.png

The attorney said that because the defendant broke his promise to operate a vehicle that obviously did not conform to the forged vehicle nameplate, the plaintiff could not use the vehicle normally, which constituted fraud and caused economic losses to the plaintiff. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, according to the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights and interests Protection Law, it was ordered to accept the return of the plaintiff's car and return 1.05 million yuan of the car purchase money, and ordered the four defendants to double the compensation for the plaintiff's economic loss of 3.15 million yuan, a total of 4.2 million yuan.

The defendant's lawyer opposes the claim for compensation put forward by the plaintiff's lawyer.

First of all, Henan Huixing Automobile sales Co., Ltd. said that as car sellers, they are also victimized. During the purchase and inspection, they only confirmed the vehicle information of the customs order. They can not distinguish the vehicle nameplate and anti-counterfeiting, and do not agree to bear the responsibility of the seller of the product quality.

UC截图20190825113818.png

Secondly, Tianjin Xuzhijun International Trading Co., Ltd. said that the nameplate described by the plaintiff is not a product defect. The act described in this case does not constitute fraud and the principle of triple compensation should not be applied.

Tianjin Yuanda United Automobile Trading Group Co., Ltd. said that when the plaintiff issued the license, it could not be determined that the car was a forgery just because the DMV failed the first inspection, but should carry out a second inspection of the vehicle.

UC截图20190825113840.png

Both sides hold their own views on the controversial points in this incident. In this regard, the people's Court of Jiaozuo liberated area decided to pronounce the verdict on another day.

Welcome to subscribe to the WeChat public account "Automotive Industry Focus" to get the first-hand insider information on the automotive industry and talk about things in the automotive circle. Welcome to break the news! WeChat ID autoWechat

Views: 0

*The comments in the above article only represent the author's personal views and do not represent the views and positions of this website. If you have more insights, please feel free to contribute and share.

Share To

Network commentsNetwork comments are only for expressing personal opinions and do not express the position of this website

Related

News

Wechat

© 2024 AutoBeta.Net Tiger Media Company. All rights reserved.

12
Report