It is reported that this car was given to his son-in-law Mei Peng by Mr. Huang, so his son-in-law also found the maintenance order. This Mr. Mei took the 4s shop to court and demanded a refund of one and a compensation of three. If there are some problems with the goods bought, consumers can ask the seller to refund one and compensate three, that is, refund the payment for the goods themselves and make triple compensation. It seems that the vehicle in the incident did not meet this compensation condition. According to the 4s shop, the vehicle was repaired before being transported to the store for domestic sale. The production process of vehicles is complicated, and they will be inspected when they leave the factory. If there is a problem, it will be sent back to the previous program for maintenance, but it will ensure that the vehicle is brand new before leaving the factory. Moreover, the maintenance order was produced at this time, and it was not that Mr. Mei found problems in the sales process and returned to the factory for maintenance.
In this case, Mr. Mei's refund for one loss and three losses may not be realized. Because the 4s shop is also an uninformed party, there is no real fraudulent consumer and it is not a sales problem vehicle. The content of maintenance is only to replace the muffler, so in principle, Mr. Mei has little chance of winning the case.
As consumers, we fully understand Mr. Mei's feelings. I spent hundreds of thousands on a car, but it was repaired. It makes me angry to think about it. But since there is no problem before the vehicle leaves the factory, can this maintenance order be ignored? In fact, everyone has his own preferences. As a consumer, Mr. Mei feels that the difficulties in his heart can not pass, and naturally he can continue to complain. I believe that the law will also give the fairest judgment.