In an evident win for auto consumers, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has decided in favor of businessman Ricardo L. Nolasco Jr. in his complaint against Audi Motorcars Inc./PGA Cars Inc., thus, entitling him to either a replacement or a refund of his Audi A6 3.0 TDI.
According to the administrative decision penned by DTI Adjudicating Division Officer Ronald Calderon and released to the media, PGA Cars Inc. and Audi Motorcars Inc. were found jointly liable for the imperfections of the vehicle.
The order granted Nolasco the option to either a replacement of the vehicle in question or a reimbursement of the amount paid with monetary updating.
The decision invoked the Consumer Act of the Philippines in providing the relief.
Calderon said the case does not fall under the Philippine Lemon law but the Consumer Protection Act, as the former was passed after the complaint was filed, and there should be no retroactive application of the law.
Article 100 of the Consumer Act states that “suppliers of durable and nondurable consumer products are jointly liable for imperfections in quality that render the products unfit or inadequate for consumption for which they are designed or decrease their value, and for those resulting from inconsistency with the information provided on the container, packaging, labels or publicity messages/advertisement, with due regard to the variations resulting from their nature, the consumer being able to demand replacement to the imperfect parts.”
If the imperfection is not resolved in 30 days, the consumer can then demand the replacement of a product of the same kind or reimbursement of the amount paid.
Not only were the complaints of Nolasco on the vehicle not settled within the period, but a crucial element in the decision, according to Calderon, is the “recurrence of imperfections in the air-bag system.”
“The very function of an air-bag is to protect the driver and/or passengers sitting on the front seat, thus, the recurrence of imperfections in the air-bag system should not be taken lightly in this decision as the trade office gives paramount consideration to the safety and protection of the consumers,” Calderon said in justifying the complainant’s rights to avail himself of relief in the Consumer Act.
In his assessment of the decision, Calderon noted that the fact that PGA Cars had to replace certain units of the air-bag system and other peripheral parts of an expensive car, just two months after purchase, is “quite abnormal and unusual” and established the fact that there are imperfections on some parts and functions of the car.
The case began when Nolasco brought his Audi A6 3.0 TDI, which was bought at a hefty price of P5.5 million, to PGA Cars for repair 17 days after it was purchased.
Initial complaints consisted of problems with the ejection of the CD from the CD player and erratic display of air-bag indicator lights, but later on included random messages appearing on the dashboard, lighting up of air suspension and headlight indicators, and steering and suspension fault.
PGA Cars conducted diagnostic tests and road tests each time that the vehicle was returned. However, the decision noted that Nolasco has already “entertained doubts on the trustworthiness of the vehicle” during the second repair attempt. As a result, the complainant declined to pick up the vehicle from PGA Cars.
According to Undersecretary for Consumer Protection Victorio Maria A. Dimagiba, “the net decision is favorable to the complainant [Nolasco]”, but reiterated that the case is not a test for the Lemon law and its implications are not applicable in the matter.
Although the decision may spell the end of the yearlong dispute between the luxury-car brand and the businessman, Dimagiba noted that if this decision is disputed by PGA Cars, the firm can file the appeal before the Office of the DTI Secretary or elevate the case to a higher court.
1 comment
bad publicity. just replace the damn car