Court of Cassation ruling concerns those buying new vehicles! If this defect is found, a replacement will not be provided

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a notable ruling in a case regarding paint defects found on certain parts of a brand-new car. The Chamber stated that the defect in the vehicle was a "latent defect" originating from the manufacturing stage rather than the user; however, it ruled that instead of replacing the vehicle with a new one, compensation for the loss of value should be paid.

According to the file, a person living in Adana wanted to sell a car they had purchased brand-new from a dealership after some time. During the sales process, it was determined during an expert inspection that the left door and the center pillar were painted, and the left lower rocker panel had a local paint job.

The consumer notified the company officials of the situation and requested to be given another vehicle without defects. After the request was rejected, a lawsuit was filed at the Adana 3rd Consumer Court, and it was requested that the car be replaced with a defect-free equivalent.

The defendant company argued that the car's paint was in accordance with standards and requested an investigation into whether the consumer had the car painted. In the expert report obtained within the scope of the case, it was noted that there was paint dripping in some areas of the car, and therefore the paint thickness was above the reference values.

The report stated that the defect originated from the design and production processes and that there was no fault that could be attributed to the consumer. The local court pointed out that the problem with the vehicle was a latent defect and that the expected benefit from a brand-new vehicle could not be obtained, and decided that the vehicle should be replaced with a defect-free equivalent.

COURT OF CASSATION FOUND REPLACEMENT DISPROPORTIONATE

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which reviewed the appeal of the file, overturned the local court's decision for replacement with an equivalent, finding it disproportionate. The Chamber assessed that the defects in the vehicle had no negative impact on its intended use, passenger transport, driving comfort, or safety.

The ruling emphasized that the paint defect was of a nature that would cause a decrease in the vehicle's second-hand market value. For this reason, it was stated that the court should have issued a ruling for the loss of value to be paid to the consumer instead of replacing the vehicle entirely with a new one.

"The identified defects are not defects caused by the user, but are in the nature of a latent defect originating from the manufacturing stage of the vehicle. It has been assessed that there is no negative impact on the vehicle's intended use of passenger transport, no situation that would negatively affect driving comfort and safety, and that it is a latent defect of a nature that will cause a loss of value in the vehicle's second-hand market value."

News Source: 12punto