National Consumer Tribunals Orders Supplier to Refund R146,000

• The National Consumer Tribunal ordered Nolly Motors (Pty) Ltd to refund R146,000 for a defective second-hand vehicle.
• The Tribunal found that Nolly Motors contravened sections 56(2)(a) and (b) of the CPA read with 55(2)(a) to (c).
• The judgment reaffirms the importance of respecting consumer rights and adhering to the CPA's provisions on supplier liability.
• Suppliers must now be aware that refusing to repair or refund consumers can have severe consequences, including financial penalties and reputational damage.

This judgment should serve as a deterrence to other suppliers from engaging in similar conduct.

The National Consumer Tribunal has delivered a significant blow to suppliers who disregard consumer rights, particularly when it comes to refunds and repairs. In a recent judgment, the Tribunal ordered Nolly Motors (Pty) Ltd to refund a consumer R146,000 for a defective second-hand vehicle. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to the Consumer Protection Act's provisions regarding supplier liability. Under section 55(2)(a) to (c) of the CPA, consumers have the right to receive goods that are reasonably suitable for their intended purpose and free from defects. Nolly Motors' refusal to repair or refund the consumer contravened these provisions, as well as section 56(2)(b), which stipulates that consumers may return goods within six months of delivery without penalty or expense to the supplier.

The defective vehicle in question was purchased by the consumer on April 13, 2022, for R146,000. The consumer collected the vehicle two days later but experienced defects just a day after that. Despite informing Nolly Motors of the issues, the supplier refused to repair or refund the purchase price. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Nolly Motors' terms and conditions, which stipulated that the car was sold 'as is' without warranty, contravened the CPA's provisions on unfair contract terms. Although these terms were not adjudicated due to being lodged outside the three-year limit outlined in section 116 of the CPA, the Tribunal still deemed them to be in breach of consumer protections.

The judgment has significant implications for suppliers operating in South Africa. As Acting Commissioner Mr Hardin Ratshisusu noted, 'This judgment should serve as a deterrence to other suppliers from engaging in similar conduct.' The ruling reaffirms the importance of respecting consumer rights and adhering to the CPA's provisions on supplier liability. Suppliers must now be aware that refusing to repair or refund consumers can have severe consequences, including financial penalties and reputational damage. As such, it is essential for practitioners to advise clients on their obligations under the CPA, particularly regarding refunds and repairs.

Lawyers should note that this judgment reaffirms the importance of suppliers respecting consumer rights, particularly with regards to refunds and repairs. Practitioners may need to advise clients on their obligations under the CPA, including the requirement to refund consumers within six months of delivery.

Source: Original reporting via National Consumer Commission (NCC)