‘Lemon’ inspectors for disputed Audi?

February 20,2015

audi-A6The entire automotive industry has been paying close attention to the Department of Trade and Industry lately, particularly in its approach to a so-called test case for Republic Act 10642, or the Philippine Lemon Law.

Shortly after purchasing an Audi A6 3.0 TD last May 30, 2014, a retired Philippine Air Force colonel named Ricardo L. Nolasco Jr. sent the vehicle back to PGA Cars, the exclusive distributor of Audi in the Philippines, for alleged defects.

As stated in the Lemon Law, car companies are given a reasonable opportunity to address any customer complaint. PGA Cars did just that, and after the vehicle reportedly passed through multiple diagnostic tests and technician clearances, informed Nolasco that his car was as good as new. To this day, however, Nolasco has refused to retrieve his Audi, insisting instead on a full refund or a brand new unit.

Enter the DTI. Being the adjudicator, conventional wisdom would dictate that the very first thing on its agenda would be to conduct a full examination of the vehicle in question. After all, the entire point of the complaint is that one party claims that the vehicle is defective, while the other states it is not. There are clear and measurable ways to determine who is correct. But it did not, prompting PGA Cars to actually had to write a legal motion requesting DTI to inspect and road test the vehicle. However, Acting Adjudication Officer Ronald Calderon promptly denied PGA’s request, saying that the repair and roadworthiness of the vehicle in question “is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.”

Car companies are asking: Can the DTI really be able to decide on customer complaints even without looking at the disputed product?–Daxim L. Lucas

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.