The facts of the case
A consumer bought a cordless stick vacuum cleaner from a local company for €179. After nine months in use it stopped working. The consumer took it to the seller, who after inspecting it, informed the consumer that the defect in the vacuum cleaner has was not covered by the guarantee.
The seller also informed the consumer it would cost €100 to repair the vacuum cleaner. The consumer insisted that since the vacuum cleaner was still under guarantee, it should be repaired by the company free of charge.
At this point, the consumer decided to register an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start a conciliation process. However, despite the office’s intervention no amicable agreement was reached between the two parties, so the consumer was offered the option of taking her claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal, which she took up.
According to the company, the defect was caused by accumulated dirt in the vacuum cleaner- Odette Vella
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance the tribunal noted that the consumer is claiming a refund of €179, which was the price she paid to buy the vacuum cleaner from the local company, and which developed a fault during its guarantee period. The tribunal also noted that the company is rejecting the consumer’s claim on the basis that the consumer had caused the vacuum cleaner’s fault herself by misusing it.
According to the company, the defect was caused by accumulated dirt in the vacuum cleaner. The trader has therefore argued that the remedies provided to consumers by the two-year legal protection should not apply in this case.
However, the consumer insisted that the vacuum cleaner’s intended use is that of vacuuming and collecting dirt. Thus, she argued, the vacuum cleaner is not fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are normally used.
The tribunal considered that since the trader was claiming that the consumer had misused the vacuum cleaner, it was its responsibility to provide proof of such misuse. However, despite the fact that the company was given all the opportunity to submit evidence to substantiate its claims, and also to bring witnesses during the tribunal’s sitting, it had failed to present such evidence.
Furthermore, the tribunal noted that the company had only submitted a written reply to counter the consumer’s claim, and that no one representing the company had attended the hearing. Hence, the company’s reply could not even be confirmed under oath during the sitting.
The tribunal’s decision
After considering the above-mentioned facts, especially the lack of supporting evidence by the company, the tribunal upheld the consumer’s claim and ordered the company to pay the amount of €179 as a refund for the defective vacuum cleaner. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting must be paid by the company.
Odette Vella, director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.
WWW.MCCAA.ORG.MT