The facts of the case
A consumer purchased an air conditioner from a local seller for the price of €1,150 with a five-year commercial guarantee. Two days before the guarantee expired, the air conditioner developed a fault and stopped cooling. The consumer immediately reported the problem to the seller and requested a remedy.
The seller tried to repair the air conditioner and eventually informed the consumer that he needed to order some parts from abroad to be able to repair it. After three weeks the consumer informed the trader that he cannot wait any longer to have the air conditioner repaired, so he decided to buy a new air conditioner.
At this point the seller offered to install the new air conditioner for free but the consumer wanted a full refund of the amount paid for the original air conditioner. The consumer also claimed that the air conditioner was defective because the seller had used copper pipes during the installation and he was informed by someone who installs air conditioners that these were not sturdy enough for a 24 BTU air conditioner.
The consumer did not give the trader a reasonable amount of time to repair the air conditioner- Odette Vella
The seller denied the consumer’s request for a refund and subsequently the consumer lodged a formal complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start the conciliation process.
When no amicable agreement was reached through conciliation, the consumer was offered the possibility to take his case before the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal remarked that the consumer’s claim that the air conditioner was not properly installed due to inadequate copper pipes could not be accepted as the consumer presented no technical evidence corroborating his claim but just recounted what someone else told him.
Furthermore, during the sitting the trader denied that there were any problems with the piping used and argued that he had installed several other AC units in the same block of apartments and only one unit developed a fault. Some of these units belonged to the same consumer who acknowledged that he did not experience any problems with the other AC units.
The tribunal also noted that the consumer did not give the trader a reasonable amount of time to repair the air conditioner and instead bought a new one, and is now requesting the seller a full refund of the money paid for the five-year-old air conditioner.
In addition, the trader presented evidence that he did his utmost to try and repair the air conditioner as per the guarantee even though the defect was reported two days before the guarantee expired.
Finally, the tribunal noted that the consumer used the air conditioner for five years before it developed a fault and therefore it was unreasonable for the consumer to claim a full refund of the money paid.
The tribunal’s decision
Following the above-mentioned considerations, the tribunal denied the consumer’s claim for a refund. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting must be paid by the consumer.
Odette Vella, director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.
WWW.MCCAA.ORG.MT