[mac187]

Please ask your friend to get ready for a tough time. I say this cause this issue can get resolved only if he digs his ground and doesn't soften up.

The ideally way to resolve this is between car owner and the dealer with the insurer and GM as supporting acts. If things look bleak, lawyer up.

It is clear that the dealer wants to be done with this issue at the earliest hence the 'Repairs will do' line from them. This maybe the first time on Tbhp any dealer has agreed so early in the issue to fix the car for free, guilty conscience maybe? Repair would not do any good to the value of the car. First thing your friend has to do is to make it clear to the dealer that he is not interested in repair. Else they will "repair" the car over night and wash their hands off it completely.

First approach has to be of discussion. The car owner should demand a replacement car where insurance pays the total loss value. The difference has to be shared between the dealer and the car owner. Begin with 100% from dealer and then negotiate your way to conculsion.

Pressure from social media and GM will expedite the process. Ask the owner to use it to his advantage. This issue will not get resolved over-night ask your friend to be patient and assertive.

[kaizen]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

A friend who has experience in dealership business says:



The latter bit might be helpful for negotiation.

Dealer repair order or so called job estimate will have indemnify terms conditions that vehicle are tested on the road and /or garaged in their premises at the sole risk of the owners of the cars to protect them from legal issues ,but as this of no customer fault only manufacturer escalation and dealers support can amicably settle the issue on lower cost basis and less liability to the customer in terms of right off or total loss ,once the repair estimate crosses the insured value.( need good PR with insurance companies that only a dealers can do.There are cases in which the cars was replaced with good intentions by dealers on certain cases. if he has copy of the same please check and consult lawyers too before the battle begins...

[amit_arya]

Originally Posted by bikefreak

A close relative gave his chevrolet cruze to the official service centre for battery problems on the 19th of Jan. On the 23rd the service centre called to inform him that his car had caught fire in their premises the night before. Given below is a pic.

Battery problem..??? So they might have tried to jump start the car with another another car??? Do you know the consequence if the jumper cable is attached in reverse polarity or incase the terminals are attached on a non-maintenance free battery (read hydrogen leaking in case battery water covers are not sealing properly)

Inshort there is a definite (and not remote) probability that the car got burned due to negligence of the staff (incase they were working on your vehicle when it got burned)

Regards

[carzone]

How can the dealer claim to repair a car in that condition. The engine has melted, the engine bay has nothing but the melted rubber and metal.
The dealer, above his fault, asks the customer to claim insurance for such a damage, disgusting.

Ask your relative for a brand new car, let the dealer take the headache of how to provide that.

Till then, he deserves a replacement car as it is a dealers fault all the way.

BTW, which workshop was this?

[tbppjpr]

Originally Posted by poloman

This is the same point I am making. What the Audi dealer supposedly did was more grave,purposeful and unethical, still the manufacturer got the bashing. Why dual standards?
....

So many Ventos, Nanos etc have caught fire in public places and we have threads for that. So in those cases who were held responsible?

+1
Similarly a VW dealer also given new Jetta to the customer which was damaged by that dealer, but it was the VW company which had to suffer with lot of bad mouthing till the new Jetta was given to the customer.

Originally Posted by GTO

Sorry Mobike, but I have to disagree here. The customer bought a Chevrolet from an authorised Chevrolet showroom and banked on the Chevrolet workshop to set his car right. If the dealership goofed up, it is equally Chevrolet's headache.
...

If Chevrolet feels otherwise, they should take the Chevrolet logo & "authorised" banner off their dealerships immediately.

+100

Originally Posted by GTO

Just making you sign a disclaimer doesn't waive anyone of liability. There are innumerable court judgements (in India & abroad) attesting this fact.

But this is hard truth that most of the service stations have such line written in the job-cards and we sign that too. What if the car gets damaged and then the service station rejects any compensation? How to deal in such cases? I don't think it remains any easy task to fight in such cases when we have already signed such ridiculous clause in the job-card which makes the dealer free from their responsibility.

Tried searching but couldn't find any, do we have any thread on this topic?

[bikefreak]

Thank you all for your valuable inputs.
Now for an update . . .

The ASC guys (after a few mails from Chevrolet) seem to be co-operating now.
They have promised to give my relative a copy of the fire brigade report and a FIR that was lodged at the police station (although they have not given it yet). They also say they have spoken to their insurance company, but any further details are awaited.

Tomorrow a team from Chevrolet is supposed to come to the SC to inspect, assess and decide the course of action. My relative will be called at that time. Till the decision is taken, the car is still in the 'as is' condition.

It has now been more than 2 weeks (and God know how many more) since my relative is without his car.

Will keep you all posted about the developments.

[mac187]

Thats a positive step by Chevy. As mentioned before ask your relative to take a hard stand and not agree to a repaired car. If they are involving the building insurance then you can expect for delay as they would want to know the root cause of the fire. Since your relatives car was the only one affected! Not sure if this would be of any help. I see this issue getting resolved with auto insurance and not general insurance.

[hemanth.anand]

Repairing/Replacing this car is as good as assembling a new car!
If he has agreed to repair this car FOC, I feel he will be happy to pay the differential amount for a new car.

Now this cruze,
A Swift which also took the life of the driver,
A Supercar in Mumbai,
An i20 some days ago on NICE road in Bangalore,

Scary that too many cars are catching fire these days!

[kailashnj]

Any update on what happened.... Did hevchevy guys arrive and asses the damage....

[zenren]

Doesn't Chevy give 3 yr/100000km warranty? Did the car just cross 3 yrs?

Originally Posted by mobike008

All I am saying is they are not liable legally in this particular case as it does not pertain to manafacturer's component related failure but, a general fire mishap

Chevrolet cannot be made "directly" liable for this particular incidence as fire mishap didnt happen due to a manafacturer defect.

I disagree with the above points as they are based on the assumption that it is not a manufacturer defect. What info do we have that points to the fact that it is not a manufacturing defect?

Unless we know the exact cause of fire, how can we be so sure it is not a manufacturing defect that triggered the fire? If the car was not modified in any way and had been regularly serviced at the authorised service station, I don't see any reason why Chevy cannot be held responsible unless the dealer admits it as goof up on their side. The car was stored in the dealer's service station premises. If it caught fire due to external reasons or when they were working on the car's electricals, it is dealer's responsibility. If the car caught fire on its own, it has to be a manufacturing defect.

Personal take: The fact that the owner drove the car to service station and handed it off to them for repairs says he did his part in getting the experts look at it on time. If the so-called experts didn't put due care or did a sloppy job, it is upto the manufacturer and their A.S.S to figure out who is to be blamed between them. Certainly not the owner.

[smarth.katyal]

Please share the developments on the case. I think a replacement is what should be given and proper apologies by the service center for the problems incurred to the owner.

[Arch-Angel]

I agree to what Mobike says, a replacement is warranted and the sc/chevrolet should be morally responsible to do the same since this incident, which is extremely shocking and surprising, has happened within their premises. I am a little irritated with the SC's attitude that they tried to wash the incident off their hands in the first place.
Please do push for a replacement with a firm stand or write the car off as a total loss, claim insurance and ask the dealership to give a new cruze with the difference being borne by the dealership/chevrolet.