In a recent legal filing, two California residents have taken action against a major automobile manufacturer, accusing it of failing to honor consumer protection laws. The complaint was filed by Ruchi Agrawal and Tushar Agarwal in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on December 26, 2024, targeting General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs, Ruchi Agrawal and Tushar Agarwal, allege that General Motors LLC violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act through breaches of both express and implied warranties. According to the complaint, Agrawal and Agarwal purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Bolt on March 8, 2021. They claim that the vehicle exhibited numerous defects that impaired its use, value, and safety. Despite multiple repair attempts at authorized facilities, these issues were not resolved within the warranty period. The plaintiffs assert that General Motors had actual knowledge of these defects but failed to take appropriate action to rectify them or compensate the buyers.
The lawsuit highlights specific sections of the California Civil Code that were allegedly breached by General Motors. The plaintiffs argue they are entitled to restitution under Cal. Civ. Code §1794(a) due to the failure of their vehicle to conform to express written warranties. They also seek civil penalties amounting to twice their actual damages as per Cal. Civ. Code §1794(c), citing willful non-compliance by General Motors with its legal obligations under the warranty act.
Furthermore, Agrawal and Agarwal contend that General Motors breached implied warranties as defined under Cal. Civ. Code §1792 and §1793 by selling a vehicle unfit for ordinary purposes and unable to pass without objection in trade circles. This breach allegedly resulted in sustained actual, incidental, and consequential damages equivalent to the purchase price of the vehicle.
In their prayer for relief, Agrawal and Agarwal request several remedies from the court: rescission of the sales contract; declarations affirming defendants' failure after reasonable repair attempts; actual damages estimated at $6,500; consequential damages; restitution; civil penalties; attorney's fees; prejudgment interest; temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions; costs incurred during litigation; an accounting order for unfair competition gains as per Cal. Bus & Prof Code §§17200 et seq.; an abstention order from further unfair practices by defendants; among other just relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Representing Agrawal and Agarwal is Neal F. Morrow III from MES Legal Inc., while Judge J. Nguyen reviewed this case filed under Case ID 24CV455022 in Santa Clara County's Superior Court.