NMI motor group legal advisor, Pieter Smit, confirmed that they were aware of the theft of the over R1 million Amarok that was stolen at one of their dealerships in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal.
Smit sent IOL an email after the publication wrote a story about how Darrel Shanmugam, from Phoenix, had his Amarok Aventura 3.0 TDI stolen at Barons VW, Edwin Swales branch.
Barons VW is part of the NMI motor group.
The vehicle was stolen on October 28, 2024 after Shanmugam had taken it for repairs. The uninsured vehicle bought in August 2024, spent over a month at the dealership and was stolen the same day Shanmugam received a call to fetch his car.
Shanmugam cried foul after the dealership denied him a courtesy car and refused to take liability for the theft and directed him to his “insurer”.
On Friday, Smit explained that the company did not ignore IOL’s emails, adding that they didn’t receive the emails, together with NMI’s Claims Manager, Charl Greef.
In the reply, Smit denied that Shunmugam’s attorney was ignored when he made attempts to secure the footage showing two people leaving the dealership with the vehicle.
“We record that our attorneys have engaged in correspondence with the customer’s attorneys and none of the aforesaid correspondence has been ignored,” said Smit.
“This is certainly a regrettable incident which we do take very seriously, the circumstances pertaining to which are currently under investigation,” he said.
Smit said they were currently working with the South African Police Service, “our insurers, third party service providers and we are liaising with Shanmugam’s attorneys with a view to trying to resolve the matter.”
“We cannot comment any further at this stage whilst the investigation is under way,” he added.
Earlier, Shanmugam said he hired a lawyer to assist him to get a footage showing the vehicle being stolen.
He said his legal representative has been unsuccessful in obtaining the footage and was ignored several times.
However, in a series of emails between Shanmugam’s legal representative and the dealership attorneys, the dealership asked Shanmugam to provide proof of ownership of the vehicle, clarity on why his vehicle was not fitted with registration plates, clarity on why his vehicle was not insured, confirmation that his vehicle had not tracking device and reasons why it was not active.
The attorneys further wanted proof of where the vehicle was purchased and the purchase price paid.
“Upon receipt of the documents....we shall take instructions from our client and revert more fully,” read the email.
In response to the demands made by the dealership, Shanmugam’s legal representative, said requesting the documents won’t absolve the dealership from liability regarding the loss of the car.
“Our client’s vehicle had been at your client’s premises for a period of over a month yet at no stage were such further particulars were requested. In any event, we advise you to peruse the job card handed to our client by your client’s service advisor to seek the necessary information,” read the email.
Earlier, Shanmugam explained that his car was uninsured and not fitted with a tracking device because he still had minor issues to fix.
“I hadn’t insured it or installed a tracker because I was waiting for the dashboard lights to be fixed. I had already arranged with Matrix Vehicle Tracking to install a tracker and assist me with insurance quotes once repairs were complete,” he said at the time.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News