The Russian Armed Forces banned calculating losses for a faulty UAZ Patriot at the price of a Tank 300

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC RF) pointed out that when calculating losses due to a faulty car, the cost of another model cannot be automatically used, even if it is close in technical characteristics. This was reported on October 16 by the Russian Agency for Legal and Judicial Information (RAPSI).

As follows from the case file, the buyer of the UAZ Patriot SUV has repeatedly applied for the elimination of manufacturing defects during the warranty period. Due to repairs, she was unable to use the car for a total of more than 30 days. The court recognized this as the basis for refusing to execute the purchase agreement and collected from the manufacturer the cost of the car, the difference in price and a fine.

It is noted that since this model of the Patriot was discontinued, the court calculated the difference in cost based on the price of the Tank 300 SUV, a car from a Chinese manufacturer that was considered the closest in terms of technical characteristics and consumer properties. The defendant's arguments that the models belong to different price categories and classes of vehicles were not accepted by the courts of the first and appellate instances.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered that the lower authorities had not reliably established the actual amount of losses. To recognize goods as similar, it is not enough to compare their technical characteristics. It is also necessary to take into account their functional purpose, conditions of use, and quality indicators. When choosing a replacement in a situation where a completely identical product is not on the market, priority, according to the position of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, should be given to products from the same manufacturer. The cost of a new car of the same make, model, and year of manufacture can be determined by examination, even if an identical car is not on sale.

The Supreme Court recalled that compensation for damages must restore violated consumer rights, while maintaining a balance of interests between the parties, and cannot lead to unjustified enrichment. All previous court decisions in the case have been overturned, and the case has been sent for reconsideration.

Language barrier: non-russified car was declared unsafe

The Supreme Court considered the impossibility of translating the multimedia system to be a significant drawback.

Earlier, on October 12, it was reported that the Supreme Court of Russia declared illegal the deprivation of a driver's license if a person was not driving when the car was stopped by traffic police officers.