Wentzel v Autofit Fitment Centre Renault (Pty) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | NM Mavundla J |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 34022/2018 |
| Court | Gauteng High Court, Pretoria |
| Hearing Date | 19 July 2019 |
| Citation | 2019 JDR 2261 (GP) |
Mavundla J:
The applicant launched an application for payment in an amount of R256 965.84, being the alleged purchase price of the vehicle, a Renault Kwid, and tenders the return of the vehicle. The application has been launched on the premise that the first and second respondents ("the respondents") have breached the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008 ("CPA"), specifically sections 49(1)(b), 55 (2)(b) and (c),and 56(2)(b)-56(3).
It is common cause that the applicant purchased a new vehicle from the first respondent for an amount of R131 491.23 on 7 December 2017. The purchase price, service maintenance plan, finance and interest totalled an amount of R256 965.84.
According to the applicant when she started the aforesaid vehicle while it was still on the showroom floor, she heard a ticking and or rattling sound coming from the front part of the vehicle. She immediately asked the first respondent's sales representative by the name of Nicolas Andrade about the sound, as same was alarming, and he replied that it was a very common noise on the Kwid (the model of the new vehicle) that all of them have it, and that it is simply just the navigation system starting up.
On 11 December 2017, the applicant called the representative of the first respondent, to inform him that the said noise had gotten more intense, and that the new vehicle's hazards lights have now started flashing when the vehicle is started, which was further accompanied by the rattling noise. The said representative informed her that he was going to speak to the service department and revert to her. On the 14 December 2017 she had not heard from the said representative, she sent him an email inquiring when the problems could be fixed. She further stated in the email that she had detected further defect with regard to the air conditioner, which was not working properly, as same did not produce and or emit cold or cool air. She attached annexure B email dated 14 December 2017.
On 19 December 2017 she received an email from the representative of the first respondent advising her to bring the vehicle the following Monday, which she did. She was informed by one Danie, a mechanic or technical manager of the first respondent, that the new vehicle was sold to her with a faulty immobilizer "module". She was further
2019 JDR 2261 p3
Mavundla J
advised that as a result of the replacement of the "module", that the vehicle's control central locking was now functional. She had not been aware that this feature on the new vehicle was broken and or faulty.
The applicant collected the vehicle from the service department of the first respondent on 19 Decembers 2017. On the same date she noticed that the Bluetooth would stop functioning once the vehicle exceeded the speed of 70 km/h. On the course of the subsequent few days she noticed further components in the new vehicle giving trouble. She consequently contacted the second respondent telephonically, and was advised to contact the Motor Vehicle Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA)) for possible assistance.
On the 15 January 2018 she informed Nicolus of the screeching noise of the brakes, the rattling on the driver's front window, and that the braking system was uneven, on 25 January2018 she sent a photo marked annexure E to the first respondent to show that the roof rails were defective, and pulling away from the vehicle. The roof rails were subsequently "super glued" in place by the first respondent as they did not have the necessary tools.
On 14 March 2018 the applicant returned the vehicle to the first respondent. The vehicle she contended suffered from the following, inter alia:
a rattling sound coming from the front of the vehicle, to the extent that the hazard lights come on;
the air conditioning system is not blowing cold air;
the vehicle had a faulty "module";
the central locking system did not work and or was faulty;
the foot brakes were faulty and screeched;
the driver's side window is loose, and railed while driving the vehicle;
2019 JDR 2261 p4
Mavundla J
the Bluetooth car kit and or system does not work when the vehicle exceeded 70km/h;
the roof rails started to pull off of the vehicle;
the back panels of the vehicle started to pull off;
the vehicle makes a ticking sound (separate to the sound recorded herein above), at the front left-hand side of the vehicle;
emergency mobilizer activating at unexpected times;
navigation system had a loose connection causing certain ticking noises;
roof racks began coming loose after again after being replaced.
On 14 March 2018 Mr Werner Petzer the first respondent's dealer principal acknowledged the defects on the vehicle and offered to purchase the vehicle from her (much like a trade-In) at its current "blue book" value, and would attempt to restructure a more promising vehicle finance agreement in order to purchase a "demo model" Renault Clio, which was a model provided to her as a curtesy car during some of the repairs. This conduct is in contravention of section 68(1)(c) as the first respondent attempted to alter or proposed to alter the terms and conditions of a transaction or agreement with her as the consumer, to her detriment.
The applicant contended that the first and second respondents contravened sections 49(1)(b); 55(2)(b)(c) and 56((2)(a)(b) and (3) of the Act in that:
failed to draw her attention to the fact that the agreement included an assumption of risk or liability by the respondents, in any manner that satisfies the formal requirements of section 49(3) to (4);
failed to deliver to the applicant a vehicle that is of good quality, in working order and free of any defects and that is useable and durable;
2019 JDR 2261 p5
Mavundla J
failed to repair or replace the vehicle and refund the applicant with the price...
To continue reading
Request your trial