Return due to quality problems should not receive depreciation

Not long ago, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine drafted the “Responsibility Regulations for the Repair, Replacement, and Return of Household Automobile Products (Draft for Solicitation of Comments)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Draft for Comment”) and publicly solicited opinions from the public. The reporter learned yesterday from the Consumers Association of Nanjing City that the associations of 22 cities, including Nanjing and Beijing, have sent a number of opinions to the AQSIQ and proposed that vehicles that are returned due to quality problems should not receive “depreciation fees” or Reasonable use fees; sellers have stated that they can only be exempted from exemption, and they can not be exempted from the entire vehicle and other seven recommendations.

It is necessary to reasonably determine the catalog of automobile wear and tear. The Consumers Association pointed out that the “Draft for Soliciting Opinions” did not publish the list of automobile wearing parts and it must be reasonably determined when the catalogue was developed. Non-loss parts should not be included in the catalogue. 22 urban consumer rights protection agencies pointed out that manufacturers are now classifying all components that can rotate in the vehicle as lossy parts, except for the frame firmware, which is obviously unreasonable. Automobile engines, connecting rods, and steering wheels should not be counted. For loss parts. The purpose of the manufacturer to do so is nothing more than to use "normal wear and tear" to escape the "three guarantees" responsibility. Those parts, such as tires, wipers, etc., which have no objections to the loss of parts, must have “three guarantees” if they do have product quality problems. In recent years, the occurrence of “recycling rubber” posing as a “return rubber” to make a series of inferior tires is the best warning and proof.

Automobiles returned due to quality problems should not receive “depreciation fees” or reasonable consumption fees. Consumer associations point out that under the premise of flawed quality, it is the operator’s breach of contract rather than the consumer’s breach of contract, which is sold under the “Product Quality Law.” If the product does not have the use performance, or does not meet the product standards, or does not meet the quality conditions that should be possessed, the seller shall be responsible for the repair, replacement, and return of the product; if the product is to be lost to the consumer who purchased the product, the seller shall compensation.

If the seller explained the defects, he can only be exempted from the rest of the vehicle and can not be exempted from the vehicle sales. For example, when the seller sells a car, it indicates that a tailgate has been squeezed during the transportation process and repairs have been made. Therefore, the sales price is reduced. After the sale, if the seller does not give "three guarantees" to the entire vehicle because it states that there are quality problems at the time of sales, the reason is untenable. The seller can only exempt from the quality problem of repairing the boot, and the other quality problems of the vehicle can not be exempted from his "three guarantees" responsibility.

Article 26 of the "Draft for Comment" of the time limit for providing spare vehicles should be adjusted: "Including waiting time for repair of spare parts, if the time exceeds 5 days, the repairer should provide the customer with a spare car or give reasonable transportation expenses. Compensation.” The Consumers Association pointed out that it takes too long to provide spare cars for more than five days. Because of the quality problems that occur during the Three Guarantees period of the car, it is the responsibility of the operator. Its fault has affected the normal work and life of consumers. Therefore, the so-called five-day rule needs to be shortened.

The conditions for returning vehicles shall take into account the feasibility and regulatory basis. First, Article 23 of the “Draft for Comment” stipulates that: “Within 30 days after the sale of household automotive products, serious safety issues arise from product quality problems. Performance failure, consumers can choose to return, replace, repair. Consumers require a return, the seller should be responsible for free returns." Consumers Association pointed out that the car three bags is based on the invoice time as "car" time, but consumers mention the car Time is often pushed back, coupled with vehicle inspections, licenses, etc., the actual time for consumers to start using cars is greatly delayed. Therefore, the limited time for returning vehicles should fully consider these objective factors. At the same time, if the consumer fails to make full use of the vehicle after a car purchase for various reasons, it will be difficult to find the quality of the car within 30 days.

To clearly specify the quality assurance third party hopes that the automobile "Three Guarantees" regulation can make breakthroughs in this respect, clearly specify the third party appraisal organization, and lean towards the disadvantaged consumers in terms of the burden of proof, at the same time, the state should vigorously The development of third-party appraisal agencies to solve the current situation of quality problems but have no qualifications.

Finally, in the obligation of the repair company in Chapter 3 of the “Draft for Comment”, it should be referred to the relevant provisions of the “Regulations on the Replacement of Partial Commodity Fulfillment Liability” and it is stipulated that the repaired product can be normally used for more than 30 days to avoid repeated maintenance of the same fault. .