The 2nd panel Recursal TJDFT reformed the sentence of the 1st Special Court of General Jurisdiction of Guará to order the Extra supermarket to pay compensation of U.S. $ 10,800.00 to a consumer who had a bike stolen in the parking lot of the market. In the 1st Instance, the value that had been arbitrated by the court was $ 13,000.00.


 

The author says he had his bike stolen in the parking lot of Extra, and it recovered the same day, however, with several parts and personal effects left inside missing. Required compensation for property damage and lost profits due to the loss of their jobs due to the theft of the vehicle.

In his defense, Extra argues that there is in the file no invoice or document relating to the acquisition of equipment that the author claims to have installed on the bike, and no evidence that the goods they said were stolen were actually inside the vehicle. Similarly, according to Extra, it was demonstrated relationship between the alleged loss of employment and the event of theft.

In this case, the judge explained that this is strict liability, based on Art. 14, § 3, II of the Code of Consumer Protection, which only relieve the responsibility of the supplier - in this case, Extra - as he proves exclusive fault of the consumer or third.

Initially, the magistrate dismissed the possibility of the existence of material injury in the form of earnings, this is not joined documentary evidence to that effect, nor heard the witness confirmed the use of the vehicle to support the author. Remained proven, however, the existence of damage in its emerging form (equivalent to the loss actually suffered).

With regard to moral damages, the judge who teaches four are the property protected by the Constitution, as his art. 5, X: the honor, the image, privacy and intimacy. To the judge, the subtraction of the vehicle caused damage to private life of the author, the exact extent to which deprived him right there in the establishment of the defendant, to continue to make their purchases. Added to that the inconvenience caused by the absence of the vehicle for the daily activities of the family. Such damage, as police report, took place precisely in the establishment of the defendant, where he gave the stolen vehicle for the author.

Thus, these elements characterize the liability consumerist, it was deemed part the claim of the author - and all but the damage consistent profits - to pay the extra to pay compensation of U.S. $ 10,800.00, being R $ 7000.00 for the damages and U.S. $ 3800.00 for the damage.