Tawau: The Consumer Claims Tribunal here ordered a houseowner to allow a paint specialist to conduct a site investigation on his zinc roof paint to determine whether it was really of inferior quality as claimed.Chin Nyuk Thin filed a claim for RM9,000 against DRL Corporation Sdn Bhd, a Jotun Paint distributor saying that the RM868's worth of paint he bought from the company had come off his roof after barely a year, causing rust to set in and needing some RM8,000 to repair.
According to Chin who was accompanied by his son and a friend, he bought the product in September last year to paint his RM25,000 zinc roof. But by Aug this year, the paint was starting to come off.
During the hearing before Tribunal President Rungit Singh, he requested that the issue be speedily resolved in order for him to be able to do a repaint immediately to prevent more damage and incurring further financial loss.
The respondent, however, through its director Damian Lee who was accompanied by one Fung, a paint technical specialist and Jotun Sabah manager as well, said Fung's purpose of coming to Tawau was to conduct a site investigation upon receiving the complaint from Chin but was forbidden by the latter to do so.
In reply to this, Chin said he waited for 10 days when informed that someone was coming to look at the problem. But as no one came he then sought the services of a lawyer to sue the company.
Specialist: I came here in October for the site investigation but Chin was reluctant to allow me. He told me there was no need as the case was already pending in court.
Rungit: You should have followed your intention with a letterÖIn future, please do that. How long does it take to do a site investigation?
Wit: One day. But if it is too technical I need to refer to our lab in KL. Maybe that would take one or two weeks.
Respondent: But from the purchase (statement) it showed he bought the paints one by one over a period of 38 days. If the painting is dragged on for too long, the paint on the joints (of the roof) cannot adhere properly. It appears he took more than 40 days to do the painting. Normally the job takes three or four days to complete.
"I have been in this business for 31 years. The performance of the paint is based on two things - weather condition and surface preparation. He complained after one year. As we are only the agent, we do not give any performance warranty. All instructions are stated on the product (tin).
Claimant: (referring the president to two sets of five-litre tins of paint.) He gave the wrong paint. This is for wood and metal, not for roofing. This one says it is for roofing.
Respondent: The "for exterior" (on the other tin) means it is also for roofing. A lot of customers have used it - there has been a problem.
Claimant's son: You have no proof of your claim.
Respondent: The Holy Trinity Church's roof for one - the paint has sustained for three years nowÖand there's the house in Taman Emas and lot more houses. If you really want to knowÖ
Specialist: Actually, before proceeding with any painting, we normally conduct a site inspection. We do offer this service, which the claimant never asked from us. We can give technical advice - painting firstly needs primer, then a protective coat and then two coats of finishing. If the product is said to be under warranty, these four must all be synchronised. But as we can see from the purchase madeÖ
Claimant's son: Why not give us the roofing paint directly?
Specialist: The only available roofing paint is emulsion and that is for concrete roofing. This paint (for wood and metal) can be used for roofing (including zinc).
Rungit, after giving the order said he would expect both parties to present their case again next month before he decides on the award.
Meanwhile, the president also ordered a four-wheel drive vehicle dealer to make an "open offer" in writing to one of its customers that he could at any time bring his vehicle in to check for manufacturing defects as claimed.
Guah Ah Liak @ Chuah Tin Tat's complaint was that there was a grave problem with the alignment of the Toyota Hilux which he bought from UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd on April 8, 2002. He claimed the company's service personnel could not seem to rectify the fault.
Eventually, they offered him a good trade-in for similar vehicle which he accepted. But he found that the new vehicle was also having the same problem. "If allowed to persist, the situation can endanger my life and the lives of my family members. The defective alignment could adversely throw the vehicle, which has a high front and light rear, off balance, and this is dangerous. I know there are other people who are also driving the same model and having the same problem," he claimed. "Do we have to wait until an accident happens before we do something about it?" Guah threw the poser to the respondent, represented by its service manager and its branch manager.
In their defence, the company's two senior personnel disclosed that the customer had used the 'rope method' to reach a conclusion that the defect lay with the alignment. They had actually tried to reach a compromise with him, explaining that in order for them to be able to really identify the fault and determine the form of rectification, they would have to dismantle the vehicle. But the latter had disagreed to it.
To this, the claimant grudgingly agreed that he had refused to have the vehicle dismantled, "because it would render the vehicle's condition similar to a second-hand car. What's the point of buying a new car then if it keeps giving you problemsÖI might as well buy a second-hand carÖ!"
As the respondent maintained that it would stick by its earlier decision not to settle any other way unless the customer allowed them to do a thorough inspection of the vehicle, Rungit advised it to write the 'open offer' letter to the customer to accommodate the latter in case he changed his mind. "Customer service is very important. This is only one customerÖjust think, how are you going to handle it if there's more of such complaints.."
