A dealership and a vehicle manufacturer must compensate a Viedmense due to “lack of clear information” when subscribing to a savings plan. This is how Justice defined it and the man from Viedma will receive almost 2 million pesos for moral and punitive damages.
The man appeared in court and said that he had signed a savings plan in 2016, He paid 26 installments and then due to inflation he could not continue paying. In 2018 he signed another plan, always with Volkswagen, and could not continue due to price increases.
He stated that “until that moment he was not planning to file any claim,” since “the misfortunes of life” had led him to finally stop paying them and resign themselves to waiting for the return of what was actually paid after the expiration of the plan.
However, Some time later he received a call apparently direct from the factory, from a man who identified himself as “Regularization Advisor for Fallen Plans.” According to the complaint, he offered to recover those paid fees. He denied that it was a new savings plan.
He accepted, although he did not receive any type of documentation. However, when paying the first installment he realized that it had been credited to Alra Sur SA, official dealership of Volkswagen Argentina, domiciled in the city of 9 de Julio.
He sent an email, they asked for the documentation, but they never responded. She sent letters and documents, but did not receive responses either.
What the dealership said
In the Viedma civil court file, the concessionaire said that The man had signed up for a savings plan to purchase an Amarok truck.
He maintained that “Your only remaining obligation is to agree on the date of delivery of the car, once instructions have been received in this regard from Volkswagen SA de Ahorro para Particular Purposes after the client fulfills the obligations under his responsibility.
He added that “It is not possible in cases where the client has plans from different dealerships.”s the transfer from one savings plan to another; “It is only possible if a transfer of the plan is made in favor of the person and/or company that wants to buy the plan, and this has not been the case.”
The ruling of the civil judge of Viedma
The civil judge of Viedma first stated that the case is framed in «the Consumer Defense Law (Law No. 24240), Therefore, it is worth remembering that this regulation seeks to achieve a balance between those who are parties to a consumer relationship, through a system of legal protection in favor of the weaker party.
After analyzing the case, at first he highlighted that «the link between the previously subscribed plans has not been proven, since according to its own initial statements, there were no breaches on the part of the plan administrator, but rather it recognized that it stopped paying them of its own will.
He even took into account that Volkswagen SA Savings for Specific Purposes recognized that the man has a sum that will be deposited for the previous plans. Thus, that claim was refuted.
However, Yeah The lawsuit was successful due to lack of adequate information and undignified treatment. The judge considered that the document letters were not answered. «This point is relevant for the purposes of assessing compliance with the duty of information imposed by art. 4 of Law 24,240 of the Consumer Defense Law, since the plaintiff’s claim was not attended to or answered by the supplier companies,” the ruling says.
It was demonstrated that “The corresponding required information was not provided.” The receipt from the dealership also did not have the necessary information that a consumer requires.
It concluded that “the conduct and statements made by the defendants do not conform to the parameters that should govern a possible hiring, based on the good faith of the parties«. He highlighted that the dealership and the factory said that the responsibility lay with the other party.
Finally, it upheld the claim and jointly ordered Alra Sur SA and Volkswagen SA de Ahorro para Finos Determinados to pay 676,000 pesos for moral damages, one million for punitive damages and 130 thousand pesos for return of what was duly paid.
