Latest news with #SalmiZalinahAbdulRahim
Daily Express
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Express
Water filter refund claim thrown out
Published on: Friday, July 25, 2025 Published on: Fri, Jul 25, 2025 By: Crystal E Hermenegildus Text Size: The Tribunal accepted the respondent's position and noted that the Claimant had fully utilised the product since 2016, and had received all the agreed maintenance services up to this point. Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal has dismissed a claim by a man seeking continued maintenance or a full refund for a water filter that has since been discontinued by the manufacturer. Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim ruled that the manufacturer, Coway Malaysia Sdn Bhd, was not contractually obligated to continue servicing the product beyond the stated service period, especially after production and spare parts had ceased. The Claimant had purchased a Coway Villaem water filter on December 23, 2016, under a five-year instalment plan with monthly payments of RM125. After completing his payment contract, he continued subscribing to annual maintenance services, paying RM693 per year until the agreed maintenance period expiry on March 31, 2025. However, the claimant was informed by Coway that the periodic maintenance service for his unit would no longer be available after that date, as the Villaem model and its replacement parts were no longer in production. Dissatisfied, he filed a claim demanding either: the respondent continue the maintenance service for his existing unit, or the Respondent Coway refund him the full price of the water filter and accept its return so that he could purchase a new one. In response, Coway informed the Tribunal that the Villaem model had been discontinued since September 6, 2019, and spare parts would only be supplied while stocks lasted. It explained that the model had been replaced with the Villaem II in March 2019, and more recently by the Villaem III in December 2024. The respondent also referred to the terms and conditions of its Service Application Membership Form, which states that while it will make 'best effort' attempts to continue maintenance services after discontinuing a product, it is under no obligation to do so beyond a reasonable period, and customers are not entitled to damages or compensation if services cannot be sustained. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's position and noted that the Claimant had fully utilised the product since 2016, and had received all the agreed maintenance services up to this point. In her ruling, Salmi said it would not be reasonable for the Claimant to expect a full refund for a product that had been used extensively over a number of years. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Daily Express
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Express
Bridal shop ordered to refund RM2,850 to customer
Published on: Thursday, July 24, 2025 Published on: Thu, Jul 24, 2025 By: Crystal E Hermenegildus Text Size: Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal has ordered a bridal shop to refund RM2,850 to a customer after ruling that the service provider failed to perform any part of its contractual obligations. Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim issued the decision following a hearing involving the claimant, Nicole Ooi Wei Shan, and the respondent, Delove Bridal Selection East Malaysia. According to the case facts, on December 31, 2023, the claimant entered into a contract with the respondent for a pre-wedding photography package and paid a deposit of RM3,000. The package was stated to be valid for three years. However, on May 5, 2025, the claimant informed the respondent via WhatsApp that due to personal issues, she and her partner would no longer be proceeding with the wedding photos and requested a refund of the deposit. The same message was also sent in English the following day. Despite the request, the respondent insisted that the deposit was non-refundable, even though none of the agreed services had been provided. The claimant proceeded to file a claim for the full refund amount of RM3,000. In response, the respondent argued that the deposit was part of a binding agreement and that the cancellation was made for personal reasons, not due to any fault on their part. The respondent also filed a counterclaim for RM10,000, citing inconvenience, disruption, and administrative burden caused by the claim. During the hearing, the respondent's staff member, Ivylyana Edin, confirmed that no wedding photographs were taken but said reminders were sent to the claimant via WhatsApp. Salmi, in her ruling, cited Section 17(5) and (6) of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, which allows consumers to cancel a future services contract at the point the cancellation is communicated to the supplier — in this case, via WhatsApp. Under Section 17(2) of the same Act, the Tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a refund after deducting 5 per cent of the full contract price, amounting to RM2,850. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's RM10,000 counterclaim and ordered that the awarded sum be paid to the claimant within 14 days. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
