Docstoc

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI JOHOR BAHRU

Document Sample
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI JOHOR BAHRU Powered By Docstoc
					      DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI JOHOR BAHRU

        DI DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TA'ZIM

PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO: (MT-5) 25-23-2007

                          Dalam perkara mengenai tuntutan
                          responden kedua iaitu Tuntutan
                          No:    TTPM-J-(P)-164-2007    di
                          hadapan     Tribunal   Tuntutan
                          Pengguna     di   bawah    Akta
                          Pelindungan Pengguna 1999

                          Dan

                          Dalam perkara mengenai suatu
                          permohonan     untuk  Perintah
                          Certiorari  berkenaan   Award
                          (selepas pendengaran) Tribunal
                          Tuntutan   Pengguna   bertarikh
                          12hb Jun 2007

                          Dan

                          Dalam     perkara     mengenai
                          seksyen-seksyen 2(2), 96, 98(2)
                          112 dan 144 Akta Pelindungan
                          Pengguna 1999

                          Dan

                          Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan
                          53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah
                          Tinggi 1980

                          Dan

                          Dalam perkara mengenai Perkara
                          1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah
                          Kehakiman, 1964


                     Page 1 of 5
                              ANTARA


MARIE FRANCE BODYLINE SDN. BHD.
(Pendaftaran Syarikat No: 195194-H)
                                                         …PEMOHON


                                DAN


1.   TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA
2.   RACHEL PANG SIOW MOEY
     (No. K/P: 650428-71-5088)
                                                     …RESPONDEN-
                                                      RESPONDEN



                DI DALAM MAHKAMAH TERBUKA

          DI HADAPAN Y.A. DATO' HUE SIEW KHENG

                  PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN



                            Brief reasons
                           (Enclosure 29)



1.   The relief sought for by the applicant is an order of Certiorari to
     bring in and quash the first respondent’s award dated
     12.6.2007 ordering the applicant to pay the second respondent
     the sum of RM11,000.00 within 14 days therefrom.




                              Page 2 of 5
2.   The applicant has raised inter alia the following issues:

     1)    Jurisdictional issue

           It is the applicant’s stand that the award of the chairman
           is illegal and/or ultra vires s.2(2)(f) of the Consumers
           Protection Act 1999 (CPA) as the applicant is providing
           healthcare services and is exempted from the application
           of the CPA.

     2)    That the award is irrational as the Tribunal had failed to
           take into account the applicant’s contention that the
           second respondent had utilized all the complimentary
           treatments provided and such complimentary treatments
           had to be taken into account in deciding whether any
           refund was in fact due and payable.

     3)    The award is in breach of s. 114 CPA in that no reasons
           were given.

3.   Upon reading the cause papers and submissions of parties I
     find as follows:

     i)    The said award is not ultra vires the CPA because it is
           clear that the applicant was not providing healthcare
           services but was operating as a slimming centre and this
           is clearly stated in the Treatment Agreement entered into
           between the parties: see para 4 which provides that-

                 “The client understands and accepts that the Centre
                 does not administer medical treatment and that the
                 treatment given under the Programme is not medical
                 but cosmetic in nature”.

     ii)   The argument of the applicant that the complimentary
           treatments provided had to be taken into account in
           deciding whether any refund is due and owing is to my
           mind irrational and untenable as the very word
           “complimentary” means “given or supplied free of charge”
           (Concise Oxford Dictionary).


                               Page 3 of 5
     iii)   I find no breach of s. 114 CPA as in the case of Hazlinda
            bt Hamzah v Kumon Method of Learning Centre the Court
            of Appeal has declared that s. 114 CPA does not fix a
            time frame for delivery of reasons and that it is sufficient if
            the Tribunal gives oral reasons. The deponent of the
            applicant did not attend at the Tribunal when decision was
            given and therefore the contents of her affidavit is based
            on hearsay. There is nothing in s. 114 CPA to stop the
            Tribunal from delivering written reasons at a later point in
            time.

4.   Y.A. Gopal Sri Ram (JCA) in Hazlinda’s case said:

            “Being a specialist body, the Tribunal has been conferred
            with extraordinary powers to do speedy justice for
            consumers. As such, its awards should not be struck down
            save in the rarest of cases, where it has misinterpreted some
            provision of the Act in such a way to produce an injustice…

            It must be demonstrated that the error has occasioned an
            injustice in a broad and general sense”.

     I find no error of law at all here, and certainly no
     misinterpretation of the provisions of the CPA as to occasion
     any injustice in this case.

     Enclosure 29 is dismissed with costs.




(DATO’ HUE SIEW KHENG)
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT MALAYA
JOHOR BAHRU                                     DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2009




                                  Page 4 of 5
COUNSEL

Bagi pihak pemohon                  -        Tt. Trevor George Partnership
                                             Peguambela & Peguamcara
                                             Suite E-07-08, 7th Floor
                                             Plaza Mont’ Kiara
                                             No. 2, Jalan 1/70C, Mont’ Kiara
                                             50480 Kuala Lumpur
                                             (Cik Kavitha Thavanayagam)
                                             (Ruj: TG/09/1024/MFB/RPSM)


Bagi pihak responden kedua               -   Tt. Mathews George & Co.
                                             Peguambela & Peguamcara
                                             Suite 03-05, Tingkat 3
                                             Wisma Maria, Jalan Ngee Heng
                                             80000 Johor Bahru
                                             (En. Mathews George)
                                             (Ruj: MG/JB2007/07CO/MG/In)



MT5-25-23-2007/AP-kod25/DHSK/rhea
Kep-6.10.09/L29/apsiap-6.10.09




                                        Page 5 of 5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:148
posted:7/7/2011
language:Malay
pages:5