Back
2020 MarsdenLR 2766
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID, J, MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, J, SURAYA OTHMAN, JJCA
Su Tiang Joo – Plaintiff
Versus
Tribunal For Consumer Claims & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01 (A)-139-03/2019
The court affirmed that the Tribunal's decision on warranty validity and consumer protection was properly grounded as per legislative intent, upholding the principle that consumer claims must have substantiated evidence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act 1999 - Sections 24E, 32, 98, 99 - Judicial review of Tribunal's dismissal of consumer claim - Appeal dismissed for lack of merit regarding warranty terms and lack of evidence for claims of unfair treatment - Tribunal found warranty valid and binding; appellant designated as consumer with locus standi; respondent discharged burden of proof adequately. (Paras 17, 18, 84, 90)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a claim for RM3,250.00 against the respondent for costs related to a defective blower fan and batteries for a vehicle, which was dismissed by Tribunal due to expired warranty.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and correctly interpreted warranty provisions; appellant's claims of procedural unfairness were ignored when no evidence supported these claims.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of warranty terms, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in consumer disputes, and the discharge of burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's findings were reasonable with respect to warranty validity, and the appeal was dismissed as there was no material evidence to support claims of unfair treatment or jurisdiction issues.
Result: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer warranty application and timeline (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background of the consumer claims (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. appellant's arguments against tribunal's decision (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. judicial review procedural findings (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. issues regarding locus standi (Para 33 , 34) |
| 6. business decisions under consumer law (Para 66 , 80 , 82) |
| 7. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 90 , 92) |
Mary Lim Thiam Suan JJCA:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
[1]The appellant’s application for judicial review of the 1st respondent’s decision dismissing his claim before the Tribunal for Consumer Claims was dismissed. It was the second of such applications.
[2]After due consideration of the submissions of all parties concerned and the reasoning of the learned Judge, we dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
The consumer claim
[3]This appeal involved a monetary claim of a sum of RM3,250.00. It arose out of a bill totaling RM5,623.70 to replace a defective blower fan and batteries in the appellant’s Mercedes-Benz E300 which he bought from the 2nd respondent under hire purchase arrangements on 22.11.2010. After the batteries and fan blower were replaced by the 2nd respondent’s authorized dealer, Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd, the 2nd respondent refused to reimburse the appellant for the costs of these replacements citing that it was not obliged to pay since the relevant three-year warranty period had expired.
[4]At the time of the appellant’s purchase of his Mercedes-Benz in November of 2010, the 2nd respondent gave a three-year warranty for any defects of parts for vehicles that it sold. The three-year warranty comprised a two-year warranty from the manufacturer and an extended one-year warranty by the 2nd respondent. The warranty was applicable to all parts of the vehicle.
[5]On 26.9.2011, the 2nd respondent decided to revise the warranty period to four-years. This warranty was however, only offered to Mercedes-Benz vehicles purchased and/or registered from 1.10.2011 onwards. The four-year warranty was actually an extension of the country warranty from one to two-years and it was only applicable in Malaysia.
[6]The appellant was obviously displeased when he learnt that the revised warranty period did not apply to his Mercedes-Benz purchased just over ten months earlier, on 22.11.2010. He felt that the revision should have been extended to his purchase.
[7]The appellant took his complaint to the 1st respondent, the Tribunal for Consumer Claims [the Tribunal]. He filed two claims: one against the 2nd respondent [Claim No. TTPM-WP-(P)-1543-2015], the other against Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd [Claim No. TTPM-WP-(P)-1542-2015]. The claim against Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd was allowed on 7.1.2016 and Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd was ordered to reimburse the appellant the sum of RM2,055.40 for the battery. The award of the Tribunal in Form 10 can be seen at page 287.
[8]On the same date, 7.1.2016, the claim against the 2nd respondent [Claim No: TTPM-WP-(P)-1543-2015] for the sum of RM5,623.70 was struck out [dibatalkan]. [See sections 98(3)104(1)(2) Consumer Protection Act 1999 ( CPA 1999)vide letter dated 7.1.2016 – see page 185.
[9]The reasons for the award against Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd in Claim No. TTPM-WP-(P)-1542-2015 and for the striking out of Claim No: TTPM-WP-(P)-1543-2015 against the 2nd respondent are not obvious as the related papers are not in the records of appeal. Neither is the Statement of Claim in Form 1 against Hap Seng Star.
First judicial review
[10]It was the decision of the Tribunal striking out the appellant’s claim against the 2nd respondent in Claim No: TTPM-WP-(P)-1543-2015 that was taken to the High Court under judicial review application No: WA-25-67-04/2016.
[11]In this judicial review application, the appellant applied for an order of certiorari to quash the whole decision and for a mandamus directing the Tribunal to rehear not his whole claim but only the part of his claim relating to the fan blower [1st judicial review]. As part of
