‘Torque Automotive have sold me a used car’ - Yet another Skoda story

[fuel_addict]

Skoda does it again!

Its hard to advise anyone to buy a Skoda due to such lemons. While we can always argue whether its Skoda's or the dealer's fault, I feel sorry for the unsuspecting customer who spends his hard earned money on a supposedly new car which he realizes later on that it is actually a used car.

Skoda is responsible for its dealers. Just like few Skoda dealerships in Mumbai have been terminated, the same needs to be done elsewhere if Skoda has to survive in India.

I'm sure there are more legal cases against Skoda than any other car manufacturer in India. Its a pity.

The "Obsessed with Quality since 1895" tag line is proving to be a misfit for Skoda in India.

[Equus]

Originally Posted by vina

Well in that case, it was a (very) old car - he bought it in Dec 2010 meaning it was probably a used car (may be used as a TD vehicle, may be something else, but it is hard to imagine the car sitting in the lot for 6 months) as he claims.

There you go! I could bet there is foul play from the FAMILY front itself.

Skoda & their dealers are one FAMILY - lets not differentiate MANUFACTURER and DEALER here. When they do the things they do, there are bound to be questions.

And I do not agree that the customer should be able to inspect every detail before buying.. How many folks from the general public are knowledgible about cars & automobiles ingeneral? Its the MANUFACTURERS + DEALERs responsiblity to sell a NEW car. I am sure the laws are in favour of the consumers (our country has good laws, only the enforcement is a challenge)..

I am worried now that the Fabia's prices are further reduced to 3.99L and not surprisingly, the ad says WHILE STOCKS LAST!!

Wonder whats cooking?!!

[poloman]

Originally Posted by wildon

If i read the VIN as TMBCHE1Z1AA152581 from the picture then its a Laura Ambiente - Manufactured on 03.06.2010

Now the dealer and Skoda have lot to answer. Probably they tried to dump this lemon on the first guy. But in nick of time he found out the issues and ducked out before registration. Finally the car got dumped on another unsuspecting person.

[arjyamaj]

Unfortunately, if Mr Daga does drag Skoda and Torque Automotive to court, Skoda will probably be absolved of all liability- citing SOP violations by the dealer. Also, Mr Daga would HAVE to prove that Torque sold him a used car. If the stand of TA is that the car never left the showroom, that would be difficult.
Irrespective, this is a ridiculous goof-up that Skoda can ill-afford to make.

[vina]

Originally Posted by arjyamaj

Unfortunately, if Mr Daga does drag Skoda and Torque Automotive to court, Skoda will probably be absolved of all liability- citing SOP violations by the dealer. Also, Mr Daga would HAVE to prove that Torque sold him a used car. If the stand of TA is that the car never left the showroom, that would be difficult.
Irrespective, this is a ridiculous goof-up that Skoda can ill-afford to make.

I'm not sure Skoda will be absolved of responsibility - legally speaking the dealer is an agent of Skoda (and Skoda has done enough in deed to give this impression - in contract law it is then legally binding by implication)

Also while the dealership may claim the car never left the showroom - they will have a hard time telling why it didn't leave the showroom for 6 months. It may be impossible to prove that it wasn't a second hand vehicle (unless of course RTO has a record) BUT it will be very hard for the dealership to prove that they didn't knowingly sell Mr. Daga a lemon - the circumstantial evidence as far as we can see is pretty strong, and consumer courts are not criminal courts - circumstantial evidence is enough (also by law in case of ambiguity in civil suits courts must favour the weaker party - in this case Mr. Daga).

[arjyamaj]

Originally Posted by vina

I'm not sure Skoda will be absolved of responsibility - legally speaking the dealer is an agent of Skoda (and Skoda has done enough in deed to give this impression - in contract law it is then legally binding by implication)

I'm not a civil/criminal lawyer (corporate, actually) but I think the dealership went beyond the parameters of its agency. Skoda would undoubtedly argue that they couldnt be vicariously liable for an agent who was not acting in line with whatever agreement they have.

Originally Posted by vina

Also while the dealership may claim the car never left the showroom - they will have a hard time telling why it didn't leave the showroom for 6 months. It may be impossible to prove that it wasn't a second hand vehicle (unless of course RTO has a record) BUT it will be very hard for the dealership to prove that they didn't knowingly sell Mr. Daga a lemon - the circumstantial evidence as far as we can see is pretty strong, and consumer courts are not criminal courts - circumstantial evidence is enough (also by law in case of ambiguity in civil suits courts must favour the weaker party - in this case Mr. Daga).

Agreed on the circumstantial evidence. But the fact that it was used by the earlier 'owner' wouldn't the onus lie on Mr Daga to prove that to begin with?

I have a feeling this is going to become a full fledged discussion on consumer and contract law

[AbiDas]

Originally Posted by vina

It is the manufacturers responsibility to keep an eye on the dealers - if you and I start "buying" from Maruti and then start selling it - nobody will buy from us. If we next put up a board in front of our "dealership" that we are authorised Maruti dealers - Maruti would quickly put an end to the non-sense. Now if that is how it works - Maurti is responsible for how their "authorised" dealers behave

Replace Maruti in the above with Ford, Hyundai, Honda ... and the story remains the same. why should Skoda be different? Because they have a habit of keeping shitty dealers?

That is technically not possible. You can't just go to a manufacturer's factory unit, buy cars from there and start selling them. The question of anyone buying from us does not even arise, as a carmaker does not sell cars from its factory, unless it's a dealer they've authorised.

[AbiDas]

I have recently had a sour experience with my Skoda dealer while buying a Yeti. I will post it in a separate thread and post a link here.
I've decided to write to Skoda India about the malpractices certain dealerships indulge in. Either, Skoda is stupid enough to not notice their sales being low primarily because of incompetent dealers (because their cars are of optimum quality), or they just don't know about most of it.
It is just a story of one of the oldest car manufacturers of the world, with a stable full of bestselling cars, losing out on the Indian market just because of these deakers. Not good.

[Orko]

Originally Posted by AbiDas

Either, Skoda is stupid enough to not notice their sales being low primarily because of incompetent dealers (because their cars are of optimum quality), or they just don't know about most of it.

I read very recently that Skoda had doubled their sales figures in India. So I'm not sure if the Skoda management is losing any sleep over it. Just saying.

[vb-san]

Sure the dealer is the one who indulged in malpractice here, and Skoda’s name is being tarnished. That said, I feel its Skoda’s job to audit that the appointed dealers are doing the job in and efficient and sincere manner. And it’s a crime if they try to protect those dealers.

I don’t blame Skoda for this kind of an incident. But I do blame them for not taking any corrective action on the dealership.

[AbiDas]

Originally Posted by Orko

I read very recently that Skoda had doubled their sales figures in India. So I'm not sure if the Skoda management is losing any sleep over it. Just saying.

Their sales are rising mainly because of the Fabia, the Laura sells in negligible quantity. I was recently looking at my dealer's internal sales record in June in New Delhi; it read: 23 cars sold - 18 Fabias, 3 Superbs and 2 Lauras. NO Yeti.
Amazed me, especially because I consider the Fabia not a very well-built car.
It's not about the money either. There are lots of people who buy Scorpios, Outlanders and Fortuners.
It's just sad that many of us don't look at the manufacturing quality and judge cars on their price and manufacturer's popularity instead.

[bloodred]

Bought a laura recently despite all the negatives about skoda dealers. Well, have to admit that buying experience was not satisfactory at all. Skoda leavesw you to dealer's mercy with no willingness to get involved in issues related to false claims (personal experience). Warded off an attempt by the dealer to sell me a Dec 10 piece as 2011 vehicle (this was in May 2011). Advice on VIN decoding saved the day. Of course a junior guy was blamed, and incident passed off as HUMAN ERROR.

However, must add that whenever issues were escalated to higher levels in the dealership, response was prompt and professional. May be I was unlucky to bump into a nasty sales person!

Really missed the clean dealing experience I've had all these years with my Hyundai dealer in Pune

[Santoshbhat]

When I ventured to buy the Laura from Vinayak cars, I was told that they could give me immediate delivery since they had one in silver in stock. When I inspected this car at their stockyard, I found that this car was the only one without the protective plastic sheet, and very very dirty. Also it had the impression of the ribbon they tie on the hood while giving delivery. It looked like the car was supposed to be delivered, but for some reason it was still sitting in the yard. Upon enquiry, I was told that it was booked by one customer, but since his loan was not approved, it was not delivered. I rejected the piece eventually since it did not have fog lamps (that's another story of concealing facts altogether). Upon checking the VIN , I found that this car was manufactured in Dec 2010, whereas we were looking at it in May 2011. Vinayak had no explanation for this and just avoided the subject. I understand it is normal with slow moving cars like the Laura. But it all looked very suspicious.

Moral of the story : One has to be extra cautious before buying cars from Skoda dealers.

[aaggoswami]

1) Dealership sell the cars on behalf of manufacturers. Its as simple concept as anything. Manufacturer cannot just escape and blame everything on dealer.
So differentiating Dealer and Manufacturer is not good in cases like these. Manufacturer appoints dealerships and that is why not each and every person cannot get access to cars straight out of factory at ex-factory prices.

2) Whom to blame : Skoda, its as simple as that.
If bill is generated in others name, it can still lead to other problems,mainly insurance. Matters can get a bit frustrating in Shining India.

Any sort of goof up in registration, names, etc. can prove bad in our country.

3) There are full chances that the car is old. History and image of Skoda help no further. Regarding the VIN, I read it as TMBCNE1Z1AA152561. I request thread starter to put up VIN.

This case should not have happened in the first place. And volumes that Skoda is handling is much less than Maruti, Tata, Hyundai, Honda and even Chevrolet. With these less volumes, we have a reason to believe that something is not right.

[cpyder]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

One question fellas - how is this Skoda's mistake?

Having gone thru' other threads, I don't have any particular affinity to Skoda but here, Skoda has nothing to do with the matter.

The dealer messed up - not Skoda!

Originally Posted by honeybee

I doubt if the actual 'selling' of the car has anything to do with the manufacturer. If the dealer sold it to two different people, it's the dealer's mistake, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer would be responsible only for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle. So let's not be overly hasty in blaming it on Skoda.

And others who think it is not Skoda's fault, I have one question. If one could purchase directly from Skoda, faults would lie with the department from which the car would be purchased. It would still not be Skoda at fault.

In this case, why should it be dealership's fault even? It is the fault of the sales person who actually sold the car to the customer. He is the one who should be kicked and dragged to the court.

So you see, Skoda is definitely not at fault, or perhaps thats how they percieve it.