[kailashnj]

Is this car parked at sc auto thane???

I saw one Black car burnt in their parking lot. This is really serious and you should be given a new car.

Go to press and file a complaint against them in consumer forum.

Any reasons started for the burning.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by mobike008

Because the service center network is NOT owned by them.

They merely authorize and appoint them based on their historical experience, financial status and provide training to them to ensure their reputation is not marred

In this particular case, GM is not directly responsible for this incident. The SC is directly responsible. So legally, GM is scot free from this situation. As a responsible and reputed company all they can do is to ensure speedy response and an amicable resolution via. their dealership

Surprising response to say the least, if not shocking..On another thread some one from an Audi dealer took out a car on joy ride. Every one was blaming Audi for this and Audi had to suffer terrible loss to its brand value. How this case is different? The car caught fire at night..! How can one conclude that it was not due to a manufacturing fault. If it was due to some repair gone wrong again the final blame rests with GM since this was an authorised garage and the onus of training the SEs and implementing proper operating procedures at the SC rests with the manufacturer.

[thoma]

Originally Posted by poloman

Surprising response to say the least, if not shocking..On another thread some one from an Audi dealer took out a car on joy ride. Every one was blaming Audi for this and Audi had to suffer terrible loss to its brand value. How this case is different?

Basically because, this seems more of an accident and the other one a planned misbehavior from an Audi dealer named Audi Mumbai West. Especially when Audi is a premium brand with limited dealerships, the onus on Audi is multi-fold. Moreover, if I remember correctly, Audi was immature enough to hastily deny a customer grievance.

How can one conclude that it was not due to a manufacturing fault. If it was due to some repair gone wrong again the final blame rests with GM since this was an authorised garage and the onus of training the SEs and implementing proper operating procedures at the SC rests with the manufacturer.

That is more of an issue of the dealership to find out, whether in-fact a manufacturing defect could destroy their reputation. But true, the manufacturer's reputation too is at stake here unless proved otherwise.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by thoma

Basically because, this seems more of an accident and the other one a planned misbehavior from an Audi dealer named Audi Mumbai West.

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?

If you observe the picture, it is clear that fire started and was contained in the engine bay. Then how can you call this an accident? Why other cars parked nearby were not burnt? It is the responsibility of the dealer as well as the manufacturer to investigate and root cause.
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?

[Anghammarad]

Please listen to what the others have said on here and take it to the highest authorities, the car should be replaced. It is not your relatives fault. There is no reason the workshop and/or GM should not be held culpable.
Hope it gets resolved.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by bikefreak

Thanks guys. I'm overwhelmed at the enthusiasm and the time & efforts you all have taken to give your valuable opinions.
This is why Team BHP rocks !!!!

Now to answer a few of your queries . . .
- SC in question is some SC Auto in Thane
- It was bought from another dealer in goregaon - model-LTZ
- The car is about 3 yrs old and has run about 80k kms.
- Car was totally stock, no modifications of any kind whatsoever.
- The car was lying there for 4 days as the alternator was to be replaced and the part was not available.
- The fire brigade had to be called and the fire was investigated but they still do not know the cause.

Looks like the battery shorted and exploded (look closely and you can see a chunk missing) and that may be the cause of the fire. Most fires that occur like this are electrical in nature and since the car has been there for a electrical repair work it might as well be the fault of the dealer.

All the crap on the engine is the burnt underhood silencing material, its not that the engine which burnt and is looking like that! The fuse box doesn't look too bad and so are some of the hoses under the burnt hood liner in the engine bay, i believe the engine is in a better shape than what it suggests in the pic.

According to Indian standards the car looks salvageable but still it's not a wise idea to use it because like Thoma said heat will change the properties of metal and looks like the firewall has been baked pretty well. Total loss it and get a new one if there is an option.

Originally Posted by thoma

If repaired, I very much doubt whether the service center will replace all metal parts. Once heated at such temperatures, metal property drastically changes. This is detrimental in the long run.

[anjan_c2007]

The fact that the car was down with an electrical problem and was parked for 4 days, awaiting repairs at the ASC's premises, speaks a lot about the fixation of responsibility and accountability.

The ASC's men should have been wise enough to disconnect the battery terminals as it appears the car was parked for days.
Yes, as many have commented its impossible to bring back a burnt car to its original glory.

The following points may be pondered with:-

- The dealer (ASC) and GM must share most of the blame for the incident.
- A FIR with the police by the owner is essential, as the police can also investigate the cause and the probability of negligence, if any, by proper interrogation.
- I am sure that if at all the owner talks about taking the issue to the court of law, the ASC and GM may settle the issue amicably.
- If at all costs are involved, the owner must at least get the depreciated price of the car (3 yrs and 80 K kms old as you say) from the ASC/ GM and also damages for the frustration, agony and mental torture caused.

[F150]

Hmm. No after market accessories and still the car caught fire. The SC Auto service center should own the complete responsibility.

Unfortunately, the price of cruze was lesser by a lac or two 3 yrs ago. Add to that 3 years of depreciation should make you loose 30% on the ex showroom price. Assumming it was 12L ex showroom 3 years ago. You will should get about 9L from the insurance company.

You cant buy a new cruze at 9L, so you should work out a agreement with S.C Auto so that they can pickup most of the difference. This is easy to work out.

If you wish to take more harsher stand, you should push for a complete new car replacement by involving GM customer care.

Unfortunate start to the new year for your car.

Be patient and good luck !!

Originally Posted by mobike008

Because the service center network is NOT owned by them.

They merely authorize and appoint them based on their historical experience, financial status and provide training to them to ensure their reputation is not marred

In this particular case, GM is not directly responsible for this incident. The SC is directly responsible. So legally, GM is scot free from this situation. As a responsible and reputed company all they can do is to ensure speedy response and an amicable resolution via. their dealership

Saar,

please don't scare me. Most of the dealerships are owned by local goons. We cant deal with them directly. GM should step in and mediate the issue. The customer shouldn't be left to deal with these goons.

Is it really true GM is legally not obligated ?

[Jaggu]

A friend who has experience in dealership business says:

If he has signed the job card , it will be mentioned the car is kept at owner's risk in the service centre, if not can be claimed under the general insurance coverage of the service centre provided the premise is insured under risk policy

The latter bit might be helpful for negotiation.

[esteem_lover]

Legally speaking, until you have concrete proof that any malpractice of the dealer resulted in this mess, I don't think the dealer can be held responsible in any way at all. This could have happened anywhere. I would suggest working out a 3 way deal with your friend, insurance and the dealer and then get a new car for himself. I wonder if you can convince the Insurance company to evaluate this as a total loss.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by mobike008

They merely authorize and appoint them based on their historical experience, financial status and provide training to them to ensure their reputation is not marred

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.

The customer visited the Chevrolet workshop because it was "authorised" by Chevrolet. Else, he would have just visited any other roadside garage. It is Chevrolet's responsibility to ensure best practices are carried out in the workshop (clearly not in this case).

Every manufacturer is liable for the deeds of its dealers. That's why they have quality checks, balances & audits in place. We count on the manufacturer to ensure quality is maintained at the dealer's end. End of the day, the dealer is the face of the company to car owners like you & me.

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

Originally Posted by Jaggu

A friend who has experience in dealership business says

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

[Vid6639]

I think various posts have already mentioned the right course of action but to summarize them again:

Option 1:
Dealer should replace the car with a new one but some amount of depreciation should be borne by the owner of the car. Amicable option but raise it to the top levels of GM. If the dealer messes up then the manufacturer has to intervene as GTO mentioned.

Option 2:
Get the dealer to work with insurance company and declare car as a total loss. Get dealer to foot some amount towards new car and you will have to pay a small % as well.

What should not be done:
1. There is no way this car should be repaired and given back to the owner even if the dealer agrees to bear all charges. The car will have no resale value and various issues are bound to crop up in the long run and dealer will not give support later on.

2. Do not pay anything until the best option is decided in writing.

[esteem_lover]

Just to add to Vid's suggestions.

1. Do not take delivery of the car at any cost.
2. Do not sign any papers without having a lawyer look at it first.

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by F150

please don't scare me. Most of the dealerships are owned by local goons. We cant deal with them directly. GM should step in and mediate the issue. The customer shouldn't be left to deal with these goons.

Well, calling the dealership local goons isnt the right thing to say. After all, they are appointed by manafacturers after doing their due diligence

GM certainly has to step in and provide an amicable solution. 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

Originally Posted by F150

Is it really true GM is legally not obligated ?

As far as my knowledge goes, yes "legally" GM is not liable. But, it also depends on how a particular agreement is also drawn between two parties.

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.

I stand by my previous comment that it is NOT chevrolet's headache but, it is definetly a headache for ASC for this particular case

As you know most of the dealerships are owned by private companies who themselves are well established in the automotive markets

Let me take an example of KUN. They have dealerships in Hyderabad for 3 manafacturers ( Hyundai, Chevrolet and BMW)

Similarly, sole dealership of Skoda is with a company called MAHAVIR

All are privately held companies and they all are also authorized dealerships of the respective manafacturers and as per any agreement that is signed between manafacturer and dealership, there will be several lines that are drawn in terms of who owes what responsibility for a certain type of situation.

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

But, yes as a globally renowed company, it becomes their " Moral Responsibility" or " Saving their Face responsibility" " Ensuring their brand is not tarnished responsibility" ( whatever we can call it) to ensure the customer's problem is resolved in a reasonable time and fashion.

Iam not sure if we have any lawyers here who can throw some accurate light on "Who is liable" & " Why"

[Jaggu]

I think everybody is talking the same thing, at the end of the day the car needs to be replaced. It cannot be road worthy after so much of damage, and if it has to be made road worth the replacement cost will not justify.

Option is to work out something amicable through insurance (owner and dealership) and cover the cost of a new car. GM if watching would have already sent instructions, and as far as i know that's all they can do. Put some pressure to give an amicable resolution to the owner.

Nowhere i said its not dealership responsibility, knowing the legal system it will take years to reach any conclusion. So needs to be kept as a last resort. Just my 2 cents.