By Nur Ashikin Louis
KUCHING, April 29: A woman has challenged an authorised store’s ‘no return/refund’ policy after a brand-new tablet she bought on April 13 was found defective in less than 10 hours.
After being denied a refund or replacement for the defective tablet worth RM1,799 the day after the purchase, she approached Sarawak United Peoples’ Party (SUPP) Public Complaint Bureau (PCB) for assistance.
According to SUPP PCB chief Milton Foo, the complainant said the tablet could not function properly less than 10 hours after the purchase, and when she returned to the store, her request for a replacement was rejected.
“She was further told that it is not possible to do so due to the ‘no return/refund’ policy, which was printed in the invoice.
“The store can only accept the tablet she bought yesterday with a mere trade-in value of RM800, and she needs to pay another RM999 for a new tablet of the same model.
“That means she needs to spend RM2,798 to get a good new tablet. She was in despair as she only bought it yesterday, and her request for a replacement was firmly and unreasonably denied,” Foo said in a statement today.
He further said the PCB has helped the complainant to lodge a formal report with the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Affairs (KPDN), pending a hearing date to be fixed by the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
Following the case, Foo reminded consumers of their rights, highlighting that the so-called ‘no return/refund’ policy is only valid in law when two conditions are satisfied.
The conditions are that the customer must be informed of the policy before the purchase and that the product purchased must be of ‘acceptable quality’.
If the two conditions are not met, the ‘no return/refund’ policy is not valid, and the customer can insist that the product be returned, or the money be refunded.
Foo cited Sections 24A to 24I of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, which grants the court the general power to strike down a term in a contract that is ‘unfair’ and thus void or unenforceable – including a ‘no return, no refund’ period.
At the same time, Section 46 (1) provides that where the consumer exercises the right to reject goods conferred under this Act, the consumer may choose to have (a) a refund of any money paid or other consideration provided by the consumer in respect of the rejected goods, or (b) goods of the same type and similar value to replace the rejected goods where such goods are reasonably available to the supplier as part of the stock of the supplier, and the supplier shall make provision accordingly.
Section 46(2) further states that a refund referred to in paragraph (1)(a) means a refund in cash of the money paid or the value of any other consideration provided, or both, as the case may require.
Section 46(3) states that the obligation to refund cannot be satisfied by permitting the consumer to acquire other goods from the supplier.
“PCB would like to remind merchants of their duty towards consumer’s rights and also urge the public to exercise a due check on the item purchased before leaving the store, especially electronic devices such as laptops, tablets or handphones to avoid unwanted disputes and hassles with the defective goods,” he emphasised. — DayakDaily
