DISATISFACTION: MIOSA CONCLUSION ON TRUNES MOTORS COMPLAIN LODGED

I submitted a complaint about Trunes Motors for the TATA that I bought for my son which within 2 months of having been bought the differential was damaged as a result of oil leaks. the vehicle was bought on 22 February 2018 and 15 April the vehicle had that mechanical problem of which the claim was rejected due to consequential damage. MIOSA resolved that Trunes Motors cannot take responsibility of the damage based on the submission by Trunes Motors lawyer that the vehicle was bought at the auction with full service history and warranty still valid of which I was never provided with the service history book instead when I was signing the Wesbank contract I was also given Motorite Wesbank Preestige Plus Mechanical Warranty and was told where to take the vehicle for service. The part that his client was not aware that the vehicle was for my son is not true they were fully aware as my son was always dealing with Anthon Schmidt who is a Sales Consultant since from when he went there to view the vehicle and he is the one who test drove it. When the vehicle broke down it was on a Sunday and the tow truck had to tow it to my place for it to be towed on Monday to the nearest TATA dealer in Centurion and there they referred us to a Gearbox dealer in Germiston which was used by Motorite since it was a mechanical breakdown the Gear Box dealer then lodged a claim to Motorite but after assessment the claim was rejected due to consequential damage it is then that we informed Anthon Schmidt on 10 May 2018 about the rejection of the claim he contacted TATA dealer in Boksburg and advised us to take the vehicle there they may be able to assist us. For them to say that they were only made aware of the faults in June 2018 that is not true. Owner of Trunes Motors advised us to take the vehicle to TATA Boksburg in May after Motorite rejected the claim. We therefore feel that the Resolution taken by MIOSA was based on the information which was not true.