VolkswagenThe effects of the emission scandal involving in 2015 still continue. The company, which has been dealing with various lawsuits since then, Europe and USAHe is fighting legal battles in many different countries for using fraudulent software that falsifies emissions test results in . One of the cases in question was recently opened in Turkey.
SputnikAccording to the news of TS, a citizen named TS bought a 2013 model Volkswagen, which he had been dreaming of for years. However, the driver, who was disappointed in a short time, ended up in court due to the constant breakdown of his vehicle, despite frequent maintenance. Finally, the verdict came out of that case.
The choice of those who want to buy a car was second hand: Here’s why!
A recent study has revealed why citizens turn to second-hand cars. Here are the details…
The lawsuit filed against Volkswagen in Turkey has been concluded
TS, who applied to the Consumer Court to protect his rights after the problems he experienced, stated that an action called 23r7 action was made to his vehicle free of charge in February 2017 due to the error in the emission measurements. He underlined that the company recalled the vehicles abroad due to the said error, and that the problem was prevented in Turkey by only repairing it.
Underlining that he had many problems with his car, TS said, 23r7After , it faced many problems such as jerky running, lack of acceleration, fuel leaks, engine and exhaust gas errors. The driver, who went to the authorized service many times to solve his problems, claimed that he could not get rid of the malfunctions, however.
Finally, the driver, who said that he brought the vehicle that was left on the road to the service with the help of a tow truck, and that the malfunctions in the vehicle still continue, asked for the vehicle to be replaced with a faultless one.
The defendant company, on the other hand, said that the emission problem had expired and it was impossible for them to have technical and legal knowledge of the transactions allegedly carried out by the manufacturer. He stated that the aforementioned complaints of the plaintiff were not related to the service action and they were not in the nature of shame.
At the same time, he claimed that the vehicle in question has been used for up to 155,000 km for 4 years, that the owner’s information has changed at least three times, that the test carried out regarding the emission settings of the vehicle and the malfunctions occurring in the vehicle are not related to each other.
Hearing the arguments of both parties, the court ruled that the case be dismissed in line with the expert report. The plaintiff, who did not accept the decision, took the decision to the court of appeal. After the Regional Court of Justice decided to reject the objection, the victim driver, who continued his legal struggle, appealed the decision, and the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court intervened.
In the decision of the Supreme Court; It was reminded that the plaintiff’s vehicle became defective as a result of the software update, which is called action 23r7, and that the defect was not removed, and that the defect reappeared each time. In the expert report, on which the court took the decision as a basis, it was emphasized that the content of the 23r7 application, which the plaintiff claimed made his vehicle defective, was not openly discussed.