A St. Petersburg resident secured a settlement exceeding 28.4 million rubles from Avtotor JSC in a consumer protection lawsuit over a defective BMW X6. The decision was reported on the Telegram channel of the joint press service representing the city’s courts, underscoring a notable case where a vehicle fault led to a substantial financial remedy for the buyer.
Vasily Kolesov, the owner of a 2021 BMW X6 assembled by Avtotor, purchased the vehicle through an authorized dealership in St. Petersburg. Throughout the warranty period, he repeatedly reached out to the seller about persistent malfunctions affecting the car’s climate control system. The heater repeatedly failed to operate as intended, and the keyless entry system—an important convenience feature—lost reliability on several occasions. Despite multiple service visits and efforts to repair, the defects persisted, and by late March 2022 the air flow inside the cabin had completely ceased, leaving the car with a nonfunctional climate system that degraded the overall driving experience and usability of the vehicle in adverse weather conditions.
Following those unresolved problems, Kolesov formally requested a full refund of the amount paid for the car. When the manufacturer declined this request, he pursued legal action. The trial established that the vehicle’s defect constituted a manufacturing flaw, one that affected its core operation and consumer value. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Avtotor to reimburse the purchase price of the car, amounting to over 6.9 million rubles, and to compensate the plaintiff for the difference between the price paid and the current market value of a comparable vehicle, estimated at 5.5 million rubles. In addition, the court awarded interest on the loan used to finance the purchase, totaling 1.4 million rubles, imposed a penalty of 5 million rubles, and assessed a separate fine of 9.4 million rubles. The judgment also included compensation for moral damage and reimbursement of court costs, highlighting the seriousness with which the court treated manufacturing defects that undermine consumer confidence in brand-new vehicles and the integrity of warranty coverage.
The outcome of this case stands as a significant reference point in the broader landscape of consumer protection in Russia. It illustrates how courts may interpret recurring vehicle malfunctions during the warranty period as a defect of manufacturing origin, thereby supporting the buyer’s right to a remedy beyond mere repairs. This decision reinforces the expectation that automakers must stand behind their products and provide meaningful solutions to customers facing unresolved safety and functionality issues. It also signals to manufacturers, dealers, and lenders that financial exposure can extend well beyond the purchase price, encompassing ancillary costs, penalties, and damages that arise from defects that impair essential vehicle functions. The case thus serves as a practical example of the protections afforded to consumers and emphasizes the legal recourse available when a vehicle fails to meet expected reliability and performance standards, especially within regional markets that closely monitor compliance with warranty terms and consumer rights laws.