NEW CHIUN FONG (BERNIAGA ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA NEW RECON MOTORSPORTS) v 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) ROSLIZA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 3. ) MOHAMED YASEEN BIN JALALUDIN

Case Significance

Illustrates that a Consumer Claims Tribunal award is amenable to certiorari and may be quashed where the Tribunal holds a trader liable without evidence establishing that the trader, rather than a third party, was responsible to the consumer.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia, concerns an application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash two awards of the Consumer Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna"). The applicant, a motor dealer trading as New Recon Motorsports, sought to quash an award made in the claimant's favour in the respondent's absence (Form 8) and a subsequent award made after hearing (Form 10), by which the Tribunal had ordered the dealer to pay damages of RM19,310.00 to two consumers in respect of a recon Toyota Voxy sold for RM149,000.00 with a RM19,000.00 deposit. The questions were whether the Tribunal's decisions were final and immune from challenge by judicial review, and whether they were unlawful, unreasonable or reached through an improper procedure. The court accepted that the vehicle sold to the consumers suffered the defects listed in the evidence and that the consumers had a right to claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Act 599). However, it found that the consumers had failed to prove the link they alleged — that a third party was the dealer's agent and that the dealer was the party responsible to pay the damages. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in deciding that the dealer was liable to pay RM19,310.00 to the consumers without strong evidence supporting that conclusion. Accordingly, it allowed the judicial review application and quashed the awards, with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the two consumers to the applicant within fourteen days, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates that a Consumer Claims Tribunal award may be quashed on judicial review where the Tribunal fixes a party with liability in the absence of evidence establishing that party's responsibility. The court reaffirmed that a Consumer Claims Tribunal, although its awards are expressed to be final, remains subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court where it acts unlawfully, unreasonably, or through an improper procedure, so that finality does not oust judicial review on those grounds.