After riding online shopping balance car fall, appeal “return one compensation three”
Nantong then, consumers can ask to return money refund within a reasonable period, three times the compensation on the basis of inadequate support earlier in Tmall shopping in a store bought a custom style single-wheel balance car, in the process of trial run down injured, then earlier in order to balance the car problems such as substandard, false propaganda to the shop owners Han Mou appealed to the court, asked back pay a “three”.A few days ago, The Intermediate People’s Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, upheld the final judgment of the first instance of the online shopping contract dispute, which found that consumers could not achieve the purpose of consumption, consumers can ask to return goods within a reasonable period of time, ruling han to return the shopping money of 3,843.51 yuan.Jiang is a single-wheel balance car enthusiasts.On February 5, 2020, Jiang mou to 3843.51 yuan in the price of a science and technology shop in the Tmall Shopping mall han bought a customized single-wheel balance car.After receiving the goods, Jiang immediately tried riding, but accidentally fell down injured.On February 14 of the same year, Jiang mou to balance the quality of the car on the grounds of the shop owner Han Mou launched a refund application.On February 22, Han thought that there was no problem with the bike riding with the video shot by the customer, which was caused by the customer’s inexperienced operation, so he rejected the application for after-sales service.Subsequently, Jiang applied for tmall customer service intervention.On March 18 of the same year, the customer service of Tmall made a decision not to support Jiang’s request because of the buyer’s feedback that the product was described as unqualified and failed to provide effective evidence.On March 20, the refund system was shut down.Earlier thought, open the power light is bad, the balance of car wheel is not stable, cannot achieve the effect of body feeling turn control, cannot as described in the sales promotional ads more hands to vacate the ride and two minutes of easy to get started on the road, the car balance causes the injured many times, is to be of poor quality, false advertising, false comments, such as fraud,Then han mou lawsuit to qidong City people’s Court, the defendant is required to pay 1000 yuan for mental loss, 300 yuan for loss of work, return shopping money 3843.51 yuan and compensate the plaintiff three times the shopping money.After the trial, the Qidong court held that the plaintiff should have foreseen that the balanced car had certain danger and that driving required certain skills. The evidence of false publicity and fraud claimed by the defendant was insufficient, so the plaintiff’s claim of triple compensation was not supported.However, because the plaintiff could not drive the car to achieve the purpose of consumption, and had the right to return the car without reason, he asked the defendant to return the car within a reasonable period of time, and the defendant refused the improper behavior, so the plaintiff asked the court to return the shopping money of 3843.51 yuan to support.The plaintiff claims that the cost of lost work and the dispute do not belong to the same legal relationship, the case is not involved.The plaintiff’s claim for emotional damages is groundless and cannot be supported.Jiang, the court of second instance filed an appeal.After the trial, Nantong Intermediate Court held that the balancing vehicle involved in the case was designed with a single wheel, and there was no unified standard for whether the control riding could achieve somatosensory balance, and the actual operation also varied from person to person. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s online advertising that the vehicle could achieve somatosensory control turning constituted fraud, so the appeal was rejected and the final judgment was maintained.”With the rapid development of e-commerce, online shopping has become an important way of daily consumption for the masses.However, fraudulent behaviors such as false publicity, malicious brushing and false favorable comments in online transactions also seriously infringe on consumers’ right to free choice and fair trade, which is not conducive to the healthy development of online shopping market.”Chen Chunhua, the judge in charge of the first instance of the case, said that the main issue in this case is whether the seller’s online advertisement about balancing the car’s body sense control turning constitutes fraud, which determines whether the punitive compensation liability system can be applied.Article 55 of the Protection Law on the Rights and Interests of Consumers stipulates: “Where a business operator commits fraud in the provision of a commodity or service, it shall, at the request of a consumer, increase the amount of compensation for the loss suffered by the consumer, and the amount of additional compensation shall be three times the price of the commodity purchased or the cost of the service received by the consumer.”Chen Chunhua said that fraud refers to an illegal act in which a party intentionally informs the other party of false information or intentionally conceals the true information and induces the other party to make a false expression of intention.False publicity fraud is a common form of consumer fraud, and whether it constitutes consumer fraud should be viewed from the perspective of ordinary consumers, whether there is any false situation such as intentional exaggeration of product performance in operators’ advertising, so as to lead consumers into a wrong understanding.The identification of consumer fraud is not “one size fits all”, but should be combined with specific cases of comprehensive judgment.The balance vehicle is a new intelligent product which integrates the functions of leisure and entertainment and transportation tools. There is no unified standard of balance performance at present.The plaintiff has a consumer demand for motion-sensing balanced vehicles. Faced with a wide variety of electric balanced vehicles with different prices in online shopping, the plaintiff shall have a reasonable and prudent duty of care when choosing products, carefully read the quality and performance information of the products, carefully compare and place orders with caution.This case reminds the majority of consumers that only under the premise of identifying the existence of consumer fraud in the merchant, the proposition of “return one, pay three” can be supported.