Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 4:41:07 GMT -5
A vehicle defect generates the right to a full refund of the amount paid, in accordance with article 18, paragraph 1, II, of the Consumer Protection Code. However, the delay, in isolation, does not generate moral damage to be compensated by the car manufacturer. When analyzing a case that discussed the repair carried out on a vehicle outside the deadline stipulated by law, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice accepted an appeal from the automaker Ford to exclude from the sentence the payment of moral damages, which had been defined at R$ 10 thousand by the Court of Justice of Bahia.
The minister rapporteur of the Buy Phone Number List appeal at the STJ, Nancy Andrighi, recalled that the court's jurisprudence in cases of defects in vehicles stipulates that such occurrences, in isolation, do not consT*tute moral damage, being necessary, for compensation purposes, other factors capable of proving psychological distress suffered by the consumer. Frustrated expectations “In cases involving consumer rights, in order to establish off-balance sheet losses, it is necessary to verify whether the defective or inadequately supplied good or service has the ability to cause suffering, pain, psychological disturbances, embarrassment, anguish or spiritual discomfort”, argued the rapporteur.
The minister highlighted that, in this case, there was only a delay in the repair and the consumer's intention to opt for a refund of the amount paid. The records do not record the need for trips to and from the dealership responsible for the repair, nor any other situation that would characterize compensable moral damage. “The determination of moral damage is justified only by the frustration of the defendant's expectations regarding the use of his car and its repair for regular enjoyment, without any additional note having been drawn up to the mere delay that could, in addition to material damage and option of having the amount paid for the property refunded, leads to a violation of personality rights to the point of causing serious suffering or anguish”, he stressed.
The minister rapporteur of the Buy Phone Number List appeal at the STJ, Nancy Andrighi, recalled that the court's jurisprudence in cases of defects in vehicles stipulates that such occurrences, in isolation, do not consT*tute moral damage, being necessary, for compensation purposes, other factors capable of proving psychological distress suffered by the consumer. Frustrated expectations “In cases involving consumer rights, in order to establish off-balance sheet losses, it is necessary to verify whether the defective or inadequately supplied good or service has the ability to cause suffering, pain, psychological disturbances, embarrassment, anguish or spiritual discomfort”, argued the rapporteur.
The minister highlighted that, in this case, there was only a delay in the repair and the consumer's intention to opt for a refund of the amount paid. The records do not record the need for trips to and from the dealership responsible for the repair, nor any other situation that would characterize compensable moral damage. “The determination of moral damage is justified only by the frustration of the defendant's expectations regarding the use of his car and its repair for regular enjoyment, without any additional note having been drawn up to the mere delay that could, in addition to material damage and option of having the amount paid for the property refunded, leads to a violation of personality rights to the point of causing serious suffering or anguish”, he stressed.