National Consumer Commission v Highends Trading and Projects (PTY) LTD T/A Highends Auto Services (NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)) [2017] ZANCT 145 (22 July 2017)

National Consumer Commission v Highends Trading and Projects (PTY) LTD T/A Highends Auto Services (NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)) [2017] ZANCT 145 (22 July 2017)

The Tribunal found that the respondent, while in possession of Mr Sibiya's vehicle, failed to exercise the required degree of care, diligence and skill, resulting in the engine seizing while under the respondent's control. The respondent did not provide any evidence or credible explanation for the failure, nor did it refute the applicant's allegations. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's version as admitted due to the respondent's default. The respondent's conduct constituted a contravention of section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and amounted to prohibited conduct. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the contravention, the respondent's repeated failure to engage...

Citation
[2017] ZANCT 145
Parties
Applicant: National Consumer Commission; Respondent: Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2017
Case Number
NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)
Procedural Posture
Default Application / Hearing on Default Basis
Outcome
The respondent is found to have contravened section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, constituting prohibited conduct. An administrative fine is imposed, suspended for 90 days on condition that the respondent repairs the consumer's vehicle to good working order within that period.
Judges
T Woker, A Potwana, P Beck
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Prohibited Conduct, Administrative Fine, Supplier Liability, Implied Warranty of Quality
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Prohibited Conduct Administrative Fine Supplier Liability Implied Warranty of Quality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Consumer Commission

Applicant

Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Application / Hearing on Default Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent contravened section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by failing to exercise reasonable care, diligence and skill in handling the consumer's property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable to refund the consumer for repairs that failed within three months as per section 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether an administrative fine is appropriate under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent, while in possession of Mr Sibiya's vehicle, failed to exercise the required degree of care, diligence and skill, resulting in the engine seizing while under the respondent's control. The respondent did not provide any evidence or credible explanation for the failure, nor did it refute the applicant's allegations. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's version as admitted due to the respondent's default. The respondent's conduct constituted a contravention of section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and amounted to prohibited conduct. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the contravention, the respondent's repeated failure to engage...

Court Disposition

The respondent is found to have contravened section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, constituting prohibited conduct. An administrative fine is imposed, suspended for 90 days on condition that the respondent repairs the consumer's vehicle to good working order within that period.

Orders

  • The respondent must repair Mr Sibiya’s motor vehicle to good working order and free of defects within 90 days of the judgment, with assessment by the AA at the respondent’s cost.
  • If the respondent fails to repair the vehicle within 90 days, the respondent must pay an administrative fine of R150,000.00 into the National Revenue Fund within 120 days and refund R6,499.00 received from Innovation to Mr Sibiya.