Danger of car spontaneous combustion: Who should bear the loss of consumer?

From;  Author:Stand originally

   Case is answered put

January 2005 portion, tu Mou bought a southeast to get benefit to block medium-sized and average passenger car in hand of friend Dong Mou, press down two handcart to trade in An Ting the market does appropriate relevant formalities. Buy a car to add up to at that time 93000 yuan. To July 15, this car appears in exercise process drive on the right side of the seat the fume inside aperture, immediately causes inflammation quickly, combustion degree already was amounted to cannot use. After the event, tu Mou reports a case to the security authorities instantly did fire cause to maintain, contacted insurance company and some steam to sell company seek redress at the same time, but bilateral bargaining is not had if really.

   Consumer: I am very helpless

Tu Mou: The car was bought be less than half an year, by burn down. Now, thing a day insoluble, I cannot deal. I protected 4 danger to plant at that time, rush to deal with an emergency of danger of car caustic danger, responsibility of a third party, pilfer, not plan avoid accompany danger. Think formerly such no matter car advocate how old responsibility is assumed in the accident, insurance company is met to the car advocate pay total insurance cost. But, insurance company guarantees a place difficult of access of spontaneous combustion loss with doing not have however now for, reject compensate to pay. And car production manufacturer represents, we this car has an agent in Shanghai, you talk things over with them. Tu Mou improves only and go steam sells a company to negotiate compensatory be related.

Steam sells a company to think: The fire that consumer offers is maintained not detailed, cannot the cause that effectively proves car spontaneous combustion is caused by car itself.

   Lawyer opinion: Quote of businessman of businessman rejecting claims

Cause car flaming reason to may have two, car itself is caused, manufacturer and agency should assume corresponding compensation. 2 it is a car advocate drive undeserved cause, must offerring evidence to prove this accident by agency or manufacturer is by the car advocate cause. If evidence is insufficient, that businessman is forced to assume compensation.

   Viewpoint: Eat one chasm to grow one wisdom

Close to besmearing the gentleman's experience is watch sympathizes with, but sympathize with those who cannot solve ignorance to bring is painful. Car caustic danger is not right " risk of all car loss makes safeguard " abbreviation, the car loss nature that spontaneous combustion causes cannot be entered " car caustic danger " manage compensate limits. Next, although " businessman rejecting claims, businessman quote " this kind of view exists really, but legal lawsuit also is proceeding, whole suit time is met how long and how is litigant outcome also unknown. Relative to these " wispy " aid, oneself are much " charge " just be the actualest safeguard.
Previous12 Next