The Star News

Woman in legal battle with dealership after tyre explodes on day of purchase— car beyond repair

Sinenhlanhla Masilela|Published

A Gauteng woman who bought a car and the tyre exploded after she left the dealership is seeking a refund.

Image: Pexels

A Gauteng woman is embroiled in a legal battle with two car dealerships after a disastrous first day with her new vehicle.

Nelisiwe Marget Khumalo bought a 2014 Kia Rio for nearly R150,000 in April 2023. The purchase was made at Wiz Link, but the sale agreement was registered under Automax George's name.

After leaving the dealership, when she was just 67 kilometres away, she had an accident following a tyre explosion.

The accident resulted in the vehicle being declared beyond repair. The situation worsened when her insurer, Old Mutual, repudiated her claim on the grounds that the vehicle was not roadworthy at the time of the accident.

Following this, she sought recourse through various consumer protection avenues, ultimately ending up at the National Consumer Tribunal.

During the hearing, she testified that the tyres were past the acceptable industry standard; the tyre that exploded on the day of purchase was 13 years old.

She relied on an expert report, confirming the accident was caused by defective tyres. She further argued that the car was not fit to be driven due to the defective tyre and because of that, the defect warrants a return and refund.

She said she expected the tyres to be in good condition for a reasonable period and could not have anticipated any defect leading to an accident on the day of purchase.

In response, the dealerships—who pointed the finger back at Khumalo—argued that driver error and contributory negligence should be considered in the case. Automax George introduced a roadworthy certificate as evidence, claiming that the testing centre bears responsibility for scrutinising tyre conditions.

According to the dealerships, no defects were evident at the time of sale, and a defective tyre does not render the vehicle as a whole defective. They proposed that Khumalo should have contested the insurer's findings directly through civil court.

When considering the evidence, the tribunal brought evidence from Old Mutual iWYZE where an expert report confirmed the tyre's age and explained why one suffered a blowout. 

"The vehicle was inspected at Auction Nation Kempton Park. Upon inspection, it was noted that the right rear tyre was in a poor condition due to the age of the tyre. The suppliers did not disclose the old and deteriorated state of the vehicle's tyres before purchase," read the report.

As the dealerships could not provide any reason why the expert report should not be accepted, the tribunal accepted the expert report as sufficient evidence that the tyre’s age caused the explosion on the defective tyre.

The tribunal said the dealerships' evidence that Khumalo contributed to the accident was unsubstantiated and it was irrelevant in determining whether the tyre was defective when purchased.

The tribunal found that Khumalo's right to a safe vehicle of good quality was infringed as she did not get an opportunity to fully enjoy the vehicle.

"The defective tyre is, therefore, found to be a characteristic that presented an extreme risk of personal injury to the applicant (Khumalo). It posed a safety risk, rendering the vehicle less useful, practicable or safe than persons generally would be reasonably entitled to expect," said the tribunal.

It was ruled that the two dealerships contravened Section 55(2) of the South African Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which states that goods must be: (a) reasonably suitable for the purposes they are generally intended for; (b) of good quality, in good working order, and free of defects; and (c) useable and durable for a reasonable period, considering the intended use and other relevant circumstances. 

Regarding a reward sought by Khumalo, the tribunal said the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) does not prescribe what should happen if the goods have been destroyed or depleted as a result of a supplier’s actions.

Consequently, the tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to determine the amount that should be awarded to Khumalo for her damages. Instead, Khumalo was advised to institute a civil claim for damages in a civil court.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.