Imagine buying a second-hand car for almost R300,000, but its engine starts breaking down within the first month, the dealership refuses to take responsibility and then a mechanic slaps you with a R100,000 bill to fix your precious ride.
This is what happened to Vukani Muthaki of Gauteng in July 2022 after he bought a pre-owned Mazda Drifter BT-50 for R286,000 from Avura Motors.
The car had 185,000km on the clock, but within 28 days, it developed several engine problems, such as a faulty radiator, which rendered the car inoperable.
Muthaki called the dealership but was told they could not help him, as their warranty expired after 30 days or 1,000km, both of which had already been reached.
Muthaki then approached the Motor Industry Ombudsman of SA for assistance. The dealership again denied responsibility, saying the car did not have any defects at the time it was sold. The ombudsman closed Muthaki’s complaint file, saying the matter was outside its jurisdiction.
Feeling defeated, Muthaki took the vehicle to a mechanic and was quoted R106,000 for repairs. His insurance paid R75,000 and he had to settle the R31,000 balance.
Still not satisfied with the outcome of his ordeal, Muthaki took Avura Motors to the National Consumer Commission (NCC).
The evidence before the tribunal indicates that the vehicle was defective when sold and that the defect only manifested itself later
— NCC’s Tribunal
Muthaki’s insurance assessor had viewed the vehicle before it was repaired and found that the vehicle had a number of defects, including a corroded cylinder head casing, a blown cylinder head gasket, and the radiator and thermostat were severely clogged with rust and corrosion.
Presented with the report by the NCC, Avura Motors said the car had been serviced in May 2022, two months before the sale, that the cooling system was part of the service and that no other faults were detected. It said the faults that led to the engine’s breakdown were due to Muthaki’s negligence.
In delivering its judgment, however, the NCC’s tribunal noted that none of the parties disputed the insurance assessor’s report. The tribunal said the damage to the car could not be attributed to Muthaki’s negligence and that there was no evidence that he ignored any warning lights that the vehicle needed to be checked or that it was overheating.
“The evidence before the tribunal indicates that the vehicle was defective when sold and that the defect only manifested itself later,” the tribunal said.
“The... respondent refused to repair the vehicle when the consumer requested it be repaired... The contraventions are serious and amount to prohibited conduct.”
The tribunal found that Avura Motors violated the Consumer Protection Act, which says consumers have a right to quality goods that are in good working condition at the time of sale and that they have a right to return unsatisfactory goods/products within six months of the sale without any penalties imposed by the seller.
The tribunal fined the dealership R100,000 and ordered it to reimburse Muthaki and his insurance company for the costs to fix the car.
Avura Motors appealed the tribunal’s decision at the Johannesburg high court, arguing that the insurance assessor’s report was not admissible. However, their application was dismissed.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.