With the increasing number of high-rise buildings in the city, elevators have become an indispensable public facility in daily life. While people are increasingly relying on the convenience brought by this vertical speed, the accidents caused by the quality problems of the elevators are occasionally played in the real life of "life and death speed" in our lives, and the safety of the elevators is also safe. More and more attention. Recently, the second instance of Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court concluded a case of elevator quality disputes between a building equipment company in Taiyuan City, an elevator company in China and a property management company in Shanxi, and a building equipment installation engineering company in Taiyuan.
The two residential quarters of A and B in Taiyuan City use 32 elevators produced by a certain elevator company in China. On December 1, 2012 and December 20, 2012, the developers of the two communities signed a “Property Property Service Contract for Taiyuan City” with a property management company in Shanxi, responsible for the property services of the two communities and the maintenance of the shared equipment of the property. Operation and management. Due to the failure of 32 elevators to cause multiple disputes caused by the owner, the owner issued a "Power of Attorney" to the property company stating that "there are no unqualified inspections for the 22 elevators in the A community, and there are quality problems in the 10 elevators in the B community. In the dispute, the owner agreed to entrust a property management company in Shanxi to conduct rights defense litigation in the name of the company, and to change the elevator as soon as possible to ensure the safe travel of all the owners.” The Shanxi Special Equipment Research Institute has inspected the elevators involved in the A community. The "Special Equipment Inspection Opinion Notice" comments are: unqualified (22 elevators), immediately rectified and rectified, and then re-examined. On January 26, 2017, the Shanxi Special Equipment Research Institute conducted a re-examination of the above-mentioned elevators, and the conclusion was “qualified for re-inspection”. In March 2016, a property management company in Shanxi and a building equipment company in Taiyuan City and an elevator company in China filed a lawsuit in the court of Yingze District of Taiyuan City due to a product liability dispute, requesting a return of 32 elevators in two residential quarters. Processing, and refund the payment of the payment and compensation for the installation fee loss.
The court of first instance held that the elevators in the residential quarters belonged to the special equipment referred to in the "Special Equipment Safety Law of the People's Republic of China" and belonged to the owners. According to the provisions of Article 38 of the Special Equipment Safety Law, special equipment belongs to the common. The co-owner may entrust the property service unit or other manager to manage the special equipment. The trustee shall perform the obligations of the special equipment use unit stipulated in this Law and bear the corresponding responsibility. As the management obligor of the elevator, and the owner agrees to conduct rights protection litigation in its name, it is not inappropriate to prosecute the subject in its name.
Regarding whether the elevator operator should bear the responsibility for refunding the purchase price, the owner of the A and B communities, although not the contract counterpart of the elevator sales and sales contract, but the final purchase and use of the elevator involved in the case, is the real consumer of the elevator involved. Its interests shall be protected by the Consumer Protection Law.
According to the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, consumers have the right to protect their personal and property from damage when purchasing, using, and receiving services. Consumers have the right to require the goods and services provided by the operators to meet the requirements for the protection of personal and property safety. If the goods or services provided by the operator do not meet the quality requirements, the consumer may, in accordance with the state regulations, the parties agree to return the goods, or require the operator to fulfill the obligation of replacement, repair, etc.
If a consumer’s legal rights and interests are damaged when purchasing or using the goods, the seller may claim compensation from the seller. In the process of using the elevators of the A and B communities, frequent failures pose a threat to the public safety of the community owners, and the owner's request for the return of the elevator is not inappropriate. And it has formed a step back with the elevator manufacturer China Elevator Co., Ltd. Therefore, the purchase price paid by the elevator should be returned by the elevator operator who has received the payment (the manufacturer of the elevator and the seller in the sales link), and bear the responsibility for refund of the collected portion. Therefore, the court of first instance ruled that a building equipment company in Taiyuan City, within 10 days after the judgment came into effect, returned a payment of RMB 201,354,000 from the purchase of an elevator by a property management company in Shanxi for the replacement of the elevator involved in the A and B districts. After the defendant refused to accept, he appealed.
The trial of the second instance of the Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court held that, according to Article 70 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China, the owner has ownership of the exclusive parts such as houses and business houses in the building, and shares in the shared parts other than the proprietary part. The right to co-manage. Article 81: The owner may manage the building and its ancillary facilities on its own, or may entrust the property service enterprise or other manager to manage it. Article 8 of the "Taiyuan City Elevator Safety Supervision and Management Measures", if the elevator needs to be repaired, replaced, returned, and causes personal injury or property damage due to product quality defects, the elevator user manager may request the repair unit or the seller to repair or replace it free of charge. , returns and compensation. Article 16: The elevator use manager refers to a unit or individual with elevator management rights and obligations. If the property management enterprise or other unit is entrusted, the entrusted property service enterprise or other unit shall be the elevator use manager; the elevator in the residential quarter belongs to the shared facilities of the building and is the common part of the owner; the elevator involved in the case is in use. In the case of frequent failures, it poses a threat to the public safety of the community owners. The entrusted property service enterprise has become the elevator use manager, the owner has requested the return of the elevator, and the fact that the elevator manufacturer China Elevator Co., Ltd. has formed a refund is available. The payment paid by the elevator should be returned to the elevator user by the elevator operator who has received the payment.作出 Dismissed the appeal in accordance with the law and upheld the original judgment.