[.sushilkumar]

^^^ got your point . As for as proving that vehicle was abused / misused goes, the onus should be on both to prove each other otherwise. Unfortunately indian customer Laws are very manufacturer centric and as such i suspect if that will help the OP . In hind sight this will only push the dealer to milk the owner more . so better would be to take a middle path in this scenario if car is used properly .

remember another thread where warranty was refused because the person has changed the bulbs on his car to a higher one. I seriously think that FIAT will help the guy as and when they will come to know about it .

Originally Posted by julupani

Though I am not very sure, but I think the warranty policy would mention that if there is a possibility that the damage was from improper usage then the manufacturer has the right to deny warranty coverage.

I think the agreement would most likely be made so that any benefit of doubt would go to the manufacturer and not the customer.

it;s clearly mentioned in warranty terms and conditions that warranty is applicable for normal daily usage on the car . same holds good for any other products as well. No manufacturer will give u warranty if you have misused / mis handled the product.

Originally Posted by julupani

Though I am not very sure, but I think the warranty policy would mention that if there is a possibility that the damage was from improper usage then the manufacturer has the right to deny warranty coverage.

I think the agreement would most likely be made so that any benefit of doubt would go to the manufacturer and not the customer.

it;s clearly mentioned in warranty terms and conditions that warranty is applicable for normal daily usage on the car . same holds good for any other products as well. No manufacturer will give u warranty if you have misused / mis handled the product.

Note from the Team-BHP Support Team: Please use the "edit" button if posting within 30 minutes of the first post, instead of creating another back-to-back post.

Also use "Multi Quote" option for quoting Multiple posts.

[vasanthn21]

There goes another horror story with FIAT in the lead role.

If FIAT was serious about wooing customers in India, they should have handled this situation with a bit more care. Or, is TATA showing step-motherly attitude!

I am very particular about ride quality and had started entertaining the thought of a FIAT product being my next buy as they have the best ride and handling. But, it is very difficult to ignore these kind of stories.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by vasanthn21

There goes another horror story with FIAT in the lead role.

If FIAT was serious about wooing customers in India, they should have handled this situation with a bit more care. Or, is TATA showing step-motherly attitude!

I am very particular about ride quality and had started entertaining the thought of a FIAT product being my next buy as they have the best ride and handling. But, it is very difficult to ignore these kind of stories.

There is no real reason to believe that FIAT is at fault here. There isnt even any concrete information.

But still, just because its FIAT, if something has gone wrong they must be the one at fault.

[vasanthn21]

Originally Posted by julupani

There is no real reason to believe that FIAT is at fault here. There isnt even any concrete information.

But still, just because its FIAT, if something has gone wrong they must be the one at fault.

I agree with you, there is no real reason. But my thoughts (just my opinion, don't want to offend anyone):

1. Why is it that we hear more of such incidents with Fiat and not with Maruti or Honda?
2. I know that in a similar incident, TATA has agreed to bear the expenses, why not in case of Fiat?

[Aroy]

Reminds me of early seventies, when Fiat ruled. There are a lot of horror stories of parts of new cars being changed at the A.S.S. A lot of my relatives refused to take their new cars to Fiat Authorised Workshops due to this fear, and relied on friendly neighbourhood mechanics. MUL changed it all, but it seems that Fiat Workshops are back to their old game.

In my opinion, what ever be the cause, either the Manufacturer or the Insurer must pay up for the repairs, unless they can prove that the vehicle was driven in a competition or races.

[Durango Dude]

@SankalpDesai: You can't hold the company responsible for what is an accident. For all you know the car must have hit a boulder hidden by the puddle and must have damaged the sump guard.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by Aroy

In my opinion, what ever be the cause, either the Manufacturer or the Insurer must pay up for the repairs, unless they can prove that the vehicle was driven in a competition or races.

Does insurance cover such failures under "Own damage" ? It is just like any other accident caused due to honest mistake. That is if was not due to rash driving.

[Ragul]

Just how deep does a puddle have to be for hydrolock to occur? A 10 second splash of water can do that kind of damage?
Even if he might have travelled through water logged road for a 100mtrs, how high can the water reach safely without damaging the engine?
Like someone said earlier, Something does not add up...


Maybe the car was pressure washed after opening the bonnet and water seeped in through the spark plug area around the igniter area rubber hoods?

--Ragul

[basky]

Originally Posted by julupani

I think the agreement would most likely be made so that any benefit of doubt would go to the manufacturer and not the customer.

Very true. The agreements are always one sided but will rarely stand up in court. Agreements are meant to intimidate us into submission. So it makes sense to take the precaution of make our position and doubts clear in writing and asking for their position in writing too all regd a/d.

The idea is NOT to go to court, but to level the playing field to have a negotiated settlement we can live with. Manufacturers and dealers HATE to be dragged to court and avoid it unless they have clear hard evidence that there was gross abuse. Hence too the suggestion of approaching the consumer court - who generally are more in tune with consumer concerns unlike a civil court and less expensive too.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by basky

Very true. The agreements are always one sided but will rarely stand up in court. Agreements are meant to intimidate us into submission. So it makes sense to take the precaution of make our position and doubts clear in writing and asking for their position in writing too all regd a/d.

The idea is NOT to go to court, but to level the playing field to have a negotiated settlement we can live with. Manufacturers and dealers HATE to be dragged to court and avoid it unless they have clear hard evidence that there was gross abuse. Hence too the suggestion of approaching the consumer court - who generally are more in tune with consumer concerns unlike a civil court and less expensive too.

You think the manufacturer/dealer doesnt know about the legalities here. They must know when they can refuse warranty claims.

And even in a consumer court, they dont need to provide "hard evidence that there was gross abuse". All they need to show that according to their analysis there is almost no chance that the damage caused was due to any manufacturing defects.

It may be a consumer court, doesnt mean it's a court that is unfairly biased towards consumer's so as not to recognise what is a completely fair agreement between the manufacturer and the customer.

[SS-Traveller]

Three pages of advice, speculations and a lot else, but the OP has not bothered to respond to any of the queries, nor update progress. Further inputs into this thread are meaningless, and moderators may please lock this thread until OP wants to reopen it with further information.

[MAS]

@Desai - from the information you have provided, it is impossible for such a damage to occur. Unless the small puddle was a small pond and your friend drove through it in typical rally style.

The car being kept for 7 days at the dealer is a point for debate. Possibly he was waiting for the fiat engineers to assess the car. IMO, such damage will not be covered under warranty, but should not be a problem with the insurance. Your friend should double check witt the insurance agent.

[BuRnT RuBbEr]

Honestly, the speculative content of this thread is way below TBHP standards. Moreover, it has taken the good-bad-fiat route now. perhaps moderators should freeze the thread and can reopen it once the OP has some concrete information to share.

[ramzsys]

Originally Posted by BuRnT RuBbEr

Honestly, the speculative content of this thread is way below TBHP standards.

+1

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence".

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Ragul

Just how deep does a puddle have to be for hydrolock to occur? A 10 second splash of water can do that kind of damage?
Even if he might have travelled through water logged road for a 100mtrs, how high can the water reach safely without damaging the engine?
Like someone said earlier, Something does not add up...


Maybe the car was pressure washed after opening the bonnet and water seeped in through the spark plug area around the igniter area rubber hoods?

--Ragul

if that happened, then fiat's manufacturing policies and tolerances ought to be brought in question.

although i seriously think the user is not going to get any jam from the manufacturer or the insurer here.

Inadvertant as it may be, the error is highly likely to be the user's.
its not as if he came out of the service centre, and they's sprayed the intake with water, causing a lock at the service centre's door.

Low probability of water entering when going through a puddle, but there have to some cases which actually make up that number, and the owner unfortunately, has contributed.

You cant really point fingers at fiat(or any other manufacturer) in a one-off incident like this.
Now, if this were a perennial problem with a lot(or even a few) of their vehicles, then maybe....but i think the owner is in for an expensive month.

As for the seven days, i really really dont think any ASC would go to such lengths just to present an inflated estimate.