[joybhowmik]

Even main dealers staff, commit mistakes, and if any consequential damage occurs it is the owners responsibility.
Consider this - my experience today at Toyota A.S.S. - Galaxy Motors, Okhla , New Delhi, where I went for A/C service.

1) First the SA tells me to take a seat in the customer lounge. Which I do for some time, it's hot in the w/s, and the SA assures me their senior technician will do the work.
2) Around 12:30 PM I sneak downstairs into the workshop, to see what's going on. The 2 evaporators and condensor are washed. But, what's striking is the mechanic is under the hood with a roll of electrical tape. I have never ever seen this fellow before.
3) Finding electrical tape use, is not in the AC Service use case, I tap him on the shoulder with the all important question.
4) I am stunned by his nonchalant reply....
a) While taking the front blower+evaporator assembly out, 2 wires were in the way. He cut them.
b) Now he is taping them up.
c) I look. One of them is definitely the microphone wire for the passenger. The other is either the MapMyIndia antenna wire or the reverse camera wire. I am not sure. Butterflies explode in my stomach.



5) Needless to say , I go berserk. Short of murder, I went to find the head of the service managers , but it was already lunch time and he was nowhere to be found!!!
The anger rises , much like bile!!!

6) When he comes out, I say with dripping courtesy and sarcasm, that his "experienced " mechanic thought it prudent to randomly cut wires. What the hell is wrong with him???

7) Out comes the senior mechanic. I tell him in no uncertain terms, just how experienced their "experienced" mechanic is. I am told, their "experienced" mechanic has experience of 2 months - he is fresh out of an ITI.

8) I explode.

9) Anyways, to cut a long story short, the senior mechanic offers to help. I tell him nothing short of a soldered joint will do. And in my heart of hearts I know probably that won't work anyway.

10) It turns out to be the microphone and the reverse camera... thank God for relatively small mercies.

11) I stand there for the next 5 hours, as the two clowns unravel the installed reverse camera wiring, take it to a desk, solder it and put it back. Then I test the installation.

12) then comes 2 hours of waiting until they fill in the 'gas', asked them for the temperature - it was around 5.5 C.

13) I reach home at 8 PM, a full 11 hours after I left. No lunch. Just 2 cups of tea and a cold drink, and I say to myself... "Murphy was a genius".

But, yes... the fine print did say, any mistakes, omissions are customer liability. But thinking about the incident still makes me mad!

[drmohitg]

A very interesting topic. I am more interested in knowing that do such "printing of one line" saying "Owner's responsibility" have any legal value? Is this treated at par with something like signing the T&C's while banking or buying insurance? Off late I have seen this trend in our medical world too where almost all labs/Radiology centres have a line printed at the end of there report/prescription that " this report is not valid for medicolegal purpose and they do not have any responsibility". So again do such sentences have any value in the court of law in the event of something going wrong?

[EFF-EIGHT-BEE]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

A very interesting topic. I am more interested in knowing that do such "printing of one line" saying "Owner's responsibility" have any legal value? Is this treated at par with something like signing the T&C's while banking or buying insurance? Off late I have seen this trend in our medical world too where almost all labs/Radiology centres have a line printed at the end of there report/prescription that " this report is not valid for medicolegal purpose and they do not have any responsibility". So again do such sentences have any value in the court of law in the event of something going wrong?

These kind of contracts are known as standard form of contracts which are open for general public/anyone can accept it. In these type of contracts, the firm/company/person etc who are offering the contract have an unequal bargaining position in making terms and conditions. Now as per as the Indian Contract Act and in various case decisions, since they have a upper hand that doesn't means that they can wash of their basic liabilities which are the backbone of the concerned contract i.e they can't make a condition which will make a fundamental breach of contract . Now each and ever contracts have to be seen in their individual nature in every case, if they have mentioned a term which results in a fundamental breach of contact, then they won't be getting any benefit.

[jayded]

For a change, read the following in a Shopper's Stop shop, at their customer service desk.

"We are responsible for what we sell".

Initially I read it casually as "not responsible" and discarded it as the usual washing hands statement. But was pleasantly surprised when I read it again.

[one-77]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

A very interesting topic. I am more interested in knowing that do such "printing of one line" saying "Owner's responsibility" have any legal value? Is this treated at par with something like signing the T&C's while banking or buying insurance? Off late I have seen this trend in our medical world too where almost all labs/Radiology centres have a line printed at the end of there report/prescription that " this report is not valid for medicolegal purpose and they do not have any responsibility". So again do such sentences have any value in the court of law in the event of something going wrong?

I really don't think this will apply for medical stuff. The only purpose this serves is announcing that one is an incompetent radiologist/ pathologist or whatever.

I remember being taught even blanket consents aren't legally valid in case something out of the way goes wrong.

Yeah, but in these times when people sue at the drop of a hat, something like "at patent's risk" might come in useful.

[Auswechseln]

This 'Parking at owners's risk' is not only for malls and hotels, but also for companies. I observed this in my organization's basement parking lot.

I am not sure whether organizations can escape liability for damage to an employee's car.

Experts please comment.

[racer_m]

Originally Posted by Auswechseln

This 'Parking at owners's risk' is not only for malls and hotels, but also for companies. I observed this in my organization's basement parking lot.

I am not sure whether organizations can escape liability for damage to an employee's car.

Experts please comment.

I think on the contrary they can go scott free, as they are not charging you parking fee/service charges.
At max if they have cameras setup in the basement/parking lots, they can assist you in finding/tracing out who has damaged what(and then its onto you), but I really dont think you can claim damage charges from the organization

[ad3952n]

Folks! I went to Great India Place in Noida opposite Sector 18 in afternoon today to meet sidindica and my driver parked the City Ivtec in the authorized parking of the mall. While returning I just took a look at the parking card given to my driver by the parking kiosk there.

What shocked me was the fact that it mentioned "Management is not responsible for the damage of the vehicle or the loss of the contents in it under any circumstance irrespective of the cause."

Here is a pic: Please see the underlined portion.





Now, my point is, until now we were discussing that in the event of loss of valuables in the parking the attendants should be held responsible but the discussion could not reach a satisfactory conclusion. But, Over here, even worse is the fact that these "attendants" and management are not bothered and would not be responsible about the cars being damaged in the parking of their establishment. The card clearly mentions "Entertainment City" and this parking is located in the premises of the TGIP mall.

They charge INR 50/- for parking till midnight but I am worried about those visitors who don't come with a driver or the lady visitors who often request these attendants to take out the cars from the parking. In case the parking attendant bangs/ hits another vehicle then whose responsibility will it be? Is the owner at fault? or should the mall management intervene?

After all, we are coming to the mall itself and parking should be comfortable and supervised in correct way.

Thanks

[RocketRaccoon]

Have you ever seen what is written behind a Job sheet of an authorized service centre?

Background: I visited Hyundai’s service centre – Professional Hyundai Services (Sector 52, Gurgaon) for Hyundai’s free service camp today. Apart from offering discounts on parts and labour, Hyundai is offering free car check-ups and fluid top ups till 21st March 2016. After a 15 minute session of fluid top ups and air filter cleaning, I insisted on a g-scan check as I knew the clock spring assembly in the steering wheel of my i20 (2010) had conked off. (Airbag malfunction light on the console, steering controls not working correctly) The SA looked at me as if I had asked him for his vital organs and came up with silly excuses which I was least concerned about. After much loathing, the mechanic checked all electronics by plugging in the tool and thankfully there were no error codes apart from the obvious clock spring problem. While I was waiting for 2 hours for this so called 15 minute replacement job to finish I decided to look closely at the job sheet and read the terms of service. Needless to say, I am glad I get my car serviced in front of my eyes at an FNG apart from the occasional electronics related issue.
Let’s take a closer look at what you sign up for –

Apologies for the quality of the picture.
In summary, when one submits their car to a service centre the service centre is essentially not responsible for any damage that occurs to your car during service or test drive (read joy rides). In case any damage is done to someone else through your car, the liability would be yours! Any scratches that you protest about would be refused as these cannot be accounted for ‘practically’. If you want an estimate for damage you would be charged; if you face an accident and a potential total loss, you would be charged for estimates there as well and so on. Agreed, these terms and conditions are ‘normal’ for any business but you should be aware about what you sign up for. Moreover, with an FNG the risk could theoretically be higher as there is only a verbal contract involved. However, in practice, an FNG would do all the work in front of you and would not stand on your shoulders and look on while you fill the feedback form. So, the question really is – what’s your poison?

[RocketRaccoon]

Additional information related to the R/R service I availed at Professional Hyundai: Received a discount of 10% on part and 30% on labor. This is part of the free service camp scheme that is currently on-going at Hyundai ASCs'. My car is in it's 6th year so I received a discount that fell in the 4+ year old car bracket. Newer cars would receive lower discounts.

[greenhorn]

when one submits their car to a service centre the service centre is essentially not responsible for any damage that occurs to your car during service or test drive (read joy rides). In case any damage is done to someone else through your car, the liability would be yours! Any scratches that you protest about would be refused as these cannot be accounted for ‘practically’. If you want an estimate for damage you would be charged; if you face an accident and a potential total loss, you would be charged for estimates there as well and so on. Agreed, these terms and conditions are ‘normal’ for any business but you should be aware about what you sign up for.

Just because they print it does not make it binding.
My understanding is that they are just to scare off people - they probably will not stand up in court, though chasing a dealership for compensation in court is probably feasible only if they do something catastrophically bad.

[carwatcher]

We have a similar thread discussing the terms and conditions for car parking at the malls.
The consensus is that this is written by the service provider to safeguard his interest but it would definitely not stand in the court as mentioned in the previous post.

[RocketRaccoon]

Thank you for your insights. While I was reading your replies I remembered Captain Barbossa's line from Pirates of the Caribbean: "Besides, the code is more like 'general guidelines'". If they do happen to get involved in something catastrophically bad, I am sure the parent company has their own set of policies to protect the customers.
Mods, please merge with an existing thread if you feel the need to do so. (As the post is similar to an earlier thread as mentioned by carwatcher).