Captiva-5 dispute: UzAuto Motors lost in court

In 2021, UzAuto Motors signed contracts with several customers for the delivery of the updated Chevrolet Captiva. But after a certain period of time, this process was stopped. Allegedly, Captiva-5 does not fit the climate of Uzbekistan as a reason.

Uktam Kakhorov, who did not want to accept UzAuto Motors’ “endless apology”, demanded his legal rights and appealed to the court.

On November 8 of this year, another court session was held between the consumer, who has not been able to get his car for a year, and UzAuto Motors.

In it, the buyer stated that he sent 3 different offers to UzAuto Motors, but despite this issue being discussed 3-4 times, no agreement was reached.

The representative of UzAuto Motors said that all consumers were refunded and compensated after the termination of the contract, and therefore asked the consumer to reject his claim.

According to the newly issued court decision, the claimant’s claims were partially satisfied. The court determined to collect the following funds in favor of the customer: the amount of payment made for the purchase of Captiva-5 – 240 million soums, 12 million soums in the form of 5% compensation, 31 million 927 thousand soums for the loan interest received for the purpose of purchasing a car, 7 million 721 thousand soums for insurance costs and 36 million soums for inflation.

The contract for the delivery of Captiva-5 was canceled.

“The law should not react selectively”

Kamoliddin Bahavadinov, lawyer, auto-blogger:

“In the Mirzo Ulugbek inter-district court on civil cases, the appellate body held a final hearing on the Captiva-5 dispute and a decision was made. I participated as a public observer, and I can say that I was more surprised by this process. Although the court studied many arguments and reasons, it decided to cancel the contract signed between the customer and the car dealership. Moreover, the court was purely limited to collect a certain amount of fees from the account of UzAuto Motors to the consumer. In fact, the subject matter of the claim was the actual fulfillment of the contract terms. This, of course, caused sharp objections from the consumer. I also noticed a small procedural error. Normally, the court should have given an explanation on its decision part, but for some reason, as soon as the decision was read out, the videoconference was interrupted. The consumer and other participants in the trial were not able to ask questions. In my opinion, it was not necessary to do so, because the judgment panel should give a brief explanation for each decision.

As for the “decision” part, someone is charging someone to deliver a car or a certain type of product. Using these funds for a certain period, it states that it is not able to deliver this product. In this case, if it gets away with a certain amount of compensation, such an opportunity should be given to others, not just one enterprise.

For example, if “Teshavoy Motors” collects money from people for a car that does not exist, then says that it cannot deliver and claims to return the money and compensation, it will immediately be prosecuted for fraud under our current legislation. But this case was an exception. Our laws should apply equally to everyone. There is a law, and punishment is inevitable. For every deed, for every criminal act, for every deception and fraud, the responsibility established by the law must be applied. The law should not be selective, otherwise the existing trust will be void”.