A Cipolletti customer he joined a savings plan and the contract established the possibility of withdrawing the valued money. However, he could not make use of that clause. From a civil lawsuit, he obtained two favorable rulings and the last one increased the fine against one of the companies.
As detailed, the man entered in a savings plan in 84 installments. The objective was to acquire a Volkswagen Gol Trend, although the conditions of the contract allowed the money to be withdrawn with the last payment. Cipolletti’s client could not make use of this clause and tried by all means to withdraw the money from the savings plan
After four years in the plan, the client opted for that option but was unable to recoup his saved money. After trying to obtain solutions in the companies involved, It was presented at the Municipal Consumer Information Office.
During a trial before the civil court, The ruling was appealed by the firms, although the court that reviewed the proceedings recently confirmed the ruling.. It also increased the civil fine against Volkswagen SA for the infringement of the Consumer Defense Law. This week a ruling was also registered in which a million-dollar sentence was established against Provincia and two policemen in Cipolletti.
What established the resolution of the ruling in Cipolletti
The resolution considered direct damage and moral damage. As they established, the first contemplated the money saved plus interestwhile in the second they detailed that “it represented the affectation of the tranquility and emotional stability of the saver, who could not dispose of his capital for four years. This section of the sentence must be faced by both Volkswagen SA and the concessionaire Iruña SA«.
In the case of the civil fine only fell on Volkswagen SA Since the appeal judgment considered that “there was indifference or disrespect regarding the rights of the saver, who complied with all his obligations and did not receive the sum of money in due time and form, having to go through separate claims and failed attempts to the return of your money,” they explained.
“We are, without a doubt, facing totally reprehensible conduct on the part of the administrator, objectively disqualifiable conduct from the consumer, contractual and social point of view”, they remarked in the resolution.