Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal ordered a company and its owner, who sell beer, to pay a total of RM6,900 to a claimant after it was found that the beer had no expiry date and was in poor condition. The claimant had been charged twice without notice.
Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahman ordered the company, Mu Creative Marketing, and its owner, Mu Vui Yen, to pay the claimant, Zachary Arvin Asing, a refund of RM5,000 and RM1, 900, respectively, within 14 days of receiving the order.
Based on the facts of the case, on June 30, 2024, the claimant, Zachary Arvin Asing, found an advertisement by Mu Vui Yen on Facebook selling beer.
The claimant contacted him via WhatsApp, expressing interest in purchasing 80-100 cartons for a wedding.
He claimed that Mu recommended buying the beer from him, saying that stocks elsewhere were unavailable and offering a price of RM116 per carton.
Subsequently, the claimant’s father directly contacted Mu, providing their home address for the delivery of 50 cartons of Hollandia beer.
“On July 2, Mu sent 50 cartons of Hollandia beer to my house for RM95 per carton, with a partial payment of RM2,800 for 29 cartons made to Mu’s personal Maybank account.
“The remaining 21 cartons, amounting to RM1,950, were paid by my father via RHB. The total payment was RM4,750 for 50 cartons,” Zachary said.
On July 19, Zachary’s father placed an order for 30 cartons of Tiger beer, scheduled for delivery at 10am. At 10:30 am, his father paid RM3,000 for the 30 cartons at RM100 per carton to the company’s account.
“However, at 10:40am, Mu sent me the same message asking for payment. I called my father to confirm the delivery at 10.42am, and at 10.47am, I paid RM3,000 to his company’s account,” Zachary said.
“The duplicate money transfers occurred almost simultaneously. My father and I were unaware that either of us had already paid, yet Mu did not notify us of this.
Additionally, the receipts from each transfer were different,” he said.
During the wedding reception, Zachary called Mu to complain that the Tiger beer received had no expiry date, contained jelly-like residue, and had drawn complaints from guests. Mu replied that the beer had not expired.
After Zachary sent pictures and a video of the beer, he also sent a video and picture of the same problem with Hollandia Beer and one carton that he opened had a lot of dirty residue.
Mu initially agreed to a refund.
However, despite repeated follow-ups, Mu frequently said he needed to consult with his supplier.
On August 13, Zachary claimed that Mu could not provide a refund because the beer purchase had been made two months earlier. Instead, he offered to repurchase the beer at RM30 per carton.
“He also claimed the Hollandia beer was bought two months ago, but I corrected him, noting that the purchase was made on July 2, and the Tiger beer on July 19.
No further feedback has been received to date,” Zachary said.
The decision was made after the claimant submitted the necessary documents to the Tribunal, and no representative from the respondent appeared at the hearing.
