Singh v Masstores (Pty) Ltd Trading as MAKRO (NCT/219207/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 25 (27 June 2022)

Singh v Masstores (Pty) Ltd Trading as MAKRO (NCT/219207/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 25 (27 June 2022)

The Tribunal found that the fridge delivered to the applicant was defective, as evidenced by the applicant's uncontested submissions and photographic proof. The respondent failed to file any answering affidavit or appear at the hearing, resulting in the applicant's allegations being deemed admitted under Rule 13(5). The defect was reported within the statutory six-month period, and the applicant was unable to use the fridge as intended. Sections 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act entitle the applicant to a refund, repair, or replacement. Given the circumstances and the applicant's request, the Tribunal determined that a refund is the most appropriate remedy.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 25
Parties
Applicant: Swasthi Singh; Respondent: Masstores (Pty) Ltd Trading as Makro
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Case Number
NCT/219207/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Consumer Referral / Main Merits Hearing; Default Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to refund applicant.
Judges
J Simpson, T Woker, B Dumisa
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Implied Warranty, Refund Rights
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Implied Warranty Refund Rights

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swasthi Singh

Applicant

Masstores (Pty) Ltd Trading as Makro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Referral / Main Merits Hearing; Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fridge delivered to the applicant was defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund, repair, or replacement under sections 55 and 56 of the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's failure to oppose the application results in the applicant's allegations being deemed admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the fridge delivered to the applicant was defective, as evidenced by the applicant's uncontested submissions and photographic proof. The respondent failed to file any answering affidavit or appear at the hearing, resulting in the applicant's allegations being deemed admitted under Rule 13(5). The defect was reported within the statutory six-month period, and the applicant was unable to use the fridge as intended. Sections 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act entitle the applicant to a refund, repair, or replacement. Given the circumstances and the applicant's request, the Tribunal determined that a refund is the most appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to refund applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay an amount of R11,499.00 to the applicant within 30 business days of the judgment.
  • There is no order as to costs.