Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal on Wednesday ordered a Keningau-based car dealer to refund RM5,000 to a customer who bought a Toyota GL from the company which he was unable to own.
Tribunal President, Datuk Dr Lawrence S.H. Thien, directed W&S Enterprise to pay the amount to Patrick Labun, who claimed for RM7,300, being the price he paid for the car, within 14 days.
He made the award after considering that Patrick had used the Toyota for two months without road tax and was given a Kancil car to compensate his losses and agreed to continue the car loan.
Patrick told the Tribunal that he paid RM7,300 to the respondent in July 2009 and did use the Toyota for two months in the knowledge that the respondent will arrange for the road tax and car insurance to be under his name.
However, he said, he could not wait for the road tax and car insurance to be under his name and, thus, returned the car to the respondent.
Patrick claimed that he was forced to accept the Kancil to compensate his losses.
In its defence, the respondent said it could not change the car insurance and road tax to Patrick's name as Puspakom considered the car as being too old.
But an appeal can be submitted to the Road Transport Department for consideration so that the Toyota can be on the road again.
Since Patrick could not wait for the process, the respondent said Patrick agreed to accept a Kancil and continue the car loan to mitigate his losses over the Toyota.
The respondent also claimed it had paid four months' installments on the Kancil although the claimant returned the car after he used it for two days.
In another case, Thien ordered Sprinkle Car Wash to pay RM500 to Anual Kannari as compensation for damage to his car skirting bumper.
Anual said he sent his Kia Spectre to the car wash in Inanam on Jan 2 in the afternoon and claimed that the front skirting bumper was wrecked when the car driven by the worker hit the parking bay concrete.
Anual, who claimed for RM1,520 to replace the item and for painting cost, said he demanded a replacement from the car wash owner.
In its defence, the respondent represented by its owner, said he agreed to be responsible since the incident happened at his car wash premises and bought a skirting bumper costing RM300 for the claimant's car.
However, he said, he wanted the claimant to share the cost after his worker informed that the damage to the car was originally there and not caused by the minor accident.
At this juncture, Anual said he admitted some scratches on the skirting bumper but not the wrecked part which he claimed was caused by the respondent's carelessness.
The claimant only stated the costs of replacing the skirting bumper and painting that totalled over RM1,000 in his claim.
Read the full article:http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=77133