Overview Case

Bearings run precisely, tires are safe and wear-resistant, we are your reliable choice for auto parts, accompanying you on your journey and ensuring a smooth journey.Bearings run precisely, tires are safe and wear-resistant, we are your reliable choice for auto parts, accompanying you on your journey and ensuring a smooth journey

Case of Claim for Non – Standard Vehicle Tires

On April 29, 2017, Ms. Xu spent 247,000 yuan to buy a car at a 4S store in Shanghai. On March 7, 2018, her daughter had a tire blowout while driving. During maintenance, she learned that the tire was not the official standard run – flat tire for that model. Ms. Xu believed that the 4S store was fraudulent and demanded a refund plus triple compensation. The 4S store said it was a defect in the original factory assembly, not fraud. The court held that the 4S store had no fraudulent intent but had a performance defect, and awarded 50,000 yuan in compensation, rejecting other claims.

Shanghai Tire Detachment Fatal Case

On May 14, 2001, a Golden Dragon van owned by Shanghai Xiangsheng Medical Device Factory was driving on the Inner Ring Elevated Road in Shanghai. During the journey, the left rear wheel, along with the half – shaft, suddenly flew off. The wheel rolled over the road guardrail and fell from a height of 5 meters, hitting the head of Zhou Lei, a young man walking normally on the sidewalk under the viaduct. Zhou Lei died of craniocerebral hemorrhage despite full rescue efforts by the hospital. After the accident, the Shanghai Traffic Police Corps launched an investigation and commissioned relevant departments to conduct a technical appraisal of the involved vehicle. The appraisal conclusion showed that the deterioration of the lubrication condition of the left rear wheel half – shaft bearing was the cause of the accident. Zhou Lei’s relatives claimed 5 million yuan in compensation from the vehicle owner, the maintenance unit and the manufacturer, believing they all had unshirkable responsibilities. The three parties shifted blame to each other, and the case was difficult to handle due to the lack of authoritative appraisal institutions and industry standards.

Mercedes – Benz Tire Reversal Claim Case

In 2012, Ms. Yu spent 444,000 yuan to buy a Mercedes – Benz at a 4S store. During maintenance in 2015, she found that the left front tire was reversed. During the annual inspection in 2018, it was found that the models and sizes of the two front wheel hubs were inconsistent, making the vehicle fail to pass the inspection. Ms. Yu believed that the 4S store was guilty of sales fraud and demanded a refund plus triple compensation, totaling 1.81 million yuan. The 4S store stated that the vehicle passed the inspection when delivered, there was no evidence of problems at that time, and Ms. Yu continued to use the vehicle afterwards, so it should not be held responsible.

GAC Trumpchi New Car Bearing Fracture Dispute Case

In June 2020, Mr. Yang from Qingxu County, Taiyuan, bought a Trumpchi GS4 at Taiyuan GAC Trumpchi Huanghe Store. In 2021, when he was about to get on the highway, there was an abnormal noise from the rear of the car, and later it was found that the rear tire bearing of the car was broken. The 4S store claimed that it was a secondary fracture caused by external factors. Mr. Yang thought that the previous two repairs were only scratches, which did not affect the bearing, did not recognize the 4S store’s quality inspection, and demanded a third – party re – inspection.

Audi A4L New Car Bearing Damage Complaint Case

At the end of June 2022, Mr. Deng bought an Audi A4L at Jiangxi Hecheng Hong’ao Automobile Co., Ltd. After driving out of the factory, there was an abnormal noise from the front row low – speed tires, and there was a regular noise on the highway. On July 15, he went to the 4S store for inspection, and it was initially judged that the left front wheel hub bearing was damaged. The 4S store thought that replacement was enough. Mr. Deng did not agree because it involved driving safety and the new car had been on the road for less than a month. He reported to the China Network Automobile Quality Complaint Platform. With the platform’s coordination, the problem was solved in 5 days, the vehicle was repaired and he received compensation.

Case of Claim Rejection for Death Caused by Tire Explosion

On October 12, 2022, Mr. Zhang’s father, Mr. Zhang, was in a car when the tire exploded. The vehicle lost control and rolled over, and Mr. Zhang was thrown out of the car, with 53% of his body burned. He died 20 days later.The traffic police determined that it was not the driver’s responsibility. The family suspected that there was a problem with the tire quality. They found a third – party appraisal on their own, which said there was a problem with the production process, and sued the production company and the tire replacement company. The court rejected the claim because it did not recognize their test report.

Contact Info