South Africa: National Consumer Tribunal Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: National Consumer Tribunal >> 2023 >> [2023] ZANCT 38

| Noteup | LawCite

Ramesar v BCR Electronics (Pty) Ltd (NCT/260703/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 38 (7 August 2023)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION

 

Case Number: NCT/260703/2023/75(1)(b)

 

 

In the matter between:

 

SARAS RAMESAR                                                 APPLICANT

 

AND

 

BCR ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD                            RESPONDENT

 

 

Coram:                Mr S Hockey - Presiding Tribunal member

Ms Z Ntuli - Tribunal Member

Mr CJ Ntsoane - Tribunal Member

 

Date of hearing - 2 August 2023

Date of judgment - 7 August 2023

 

 

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.       This is a matter which has been referred to the National Consumer Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the applicant, with the leave of the Tribunal in terms of section 75(1)(b).

 

2.       The applicant is Saras Ramesar (the applicant), an adult female consumer as defined in section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 (the CPA). At the hearing of the matter, the applicant represented herself.

 

3.       The respondent is BCR Electronics (Pty) Ltd (the respondent), a company duly registered in accordance with the company laws of South Africa. The respondent is a service provider, as defined in section 1 of the CPA. At the hearing, the respondent was represented by Messrs Marius Wait and John Smit.

 

TERMINOLOGY

 

4.       A reference to a section in this judgment refers to a section of the CPA.

 

BACKGROUND

 

5.       This matter concerns a dispute about a De Longhi multi-functional automated coffee machine (the coffee machine) which the applicant took to the respondent for repairs on 7 December 2020.

 

6.       According to the applicant, the respondent sent the coffee machine to De Longhi in Durban without her consent.

 

7.       The applicant further alleges that the coffee machine was not repaired within the agreed time. After enquiring about the repairs and return of the coffee machine, she referred the matter to The Consumer Goods and Services Industry Ombudsman (CGSO).

 

8.       When the CGSO did not resolve the matter to the applicant’s satisfaction due to non-cooperation by the respondent, she referred the dispute to the National Consumer Commission, which issued a notice of non-referral on the basis that the respondent had repaired the coffee machine but the applicant failed to collect it.

 

9.       Thereafter, the applicant referred this matter to the Tribunal. As the respondent filed no answering papers within the prescribed time, the matter was set down for hearing on an unopposed basis.

 

10.   On the day of the hearing, however, Mr Marius Wait, who appeared with Mr John Smit for the respondent, advised the Tribunal that the respondent never received the founding papers relating to this matter. They appeared at the hearing because they received the notice of set down from the Tribunal’s registrar.

 

11.   Mr Wait informed the Tribunal that the respondent wanted to resolve this matter with the applicant. It was noted that the respondent made an offer to the respondent to settle this matter. After a discussion with the parties, the matter stood down to enable the parties to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between them.

 

12.   After a discussion between them, the parties reached a settlement which was reduced to writing.

 

THE SETTLEMENT

 

13.   The parties agreed that the written settlement agreement be confirmed as a consent order of the Tribunal.

 

14.   In brief, the settlement agreement provides that the applicant would settle an invoice to be provided by the respondent in the sum of R2 000 by close of business on 3 August 2023. Upon receipt of this payment, the respondent would arrange to return the repaired coffee machine to the applicant at the respondent’s cost. The respondent would provide the applicant with a copy of the repairer’s invoice to evidence that approved De Longhi parts were installed and to confirm that the coffee machine is in proper working order. The respondent also undertook to ascertain the probability of extending the warranty that was initially given when the coffee machine was repaired.

 

CONCLUSION

 

15.   It remains to be noted that section 138(1)(b), read with section 150 of the National Credit Act, 2005 (Act 34 of 2005) (the CPA), empowers the Tribunal to make an appropriate order in relation to prohibited or required conduct. Section 150(d) empowers the Tribunal to confirm a consent agreement as an order of the Tribunal.

 

16.   The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have duly concluded a settlement agreement which was reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties who agreed that the settlement agreement be made an order of the Tribunal.

 

THE ORDER

 

17.   In the result, the Tribunal makes the following order:

 

17.1.     The settlement agreement concluded by the parties on 2 August 2023, which is annexed hereto as “Annexure A”, is confirmed and made an order of the National Consumer Tribunal in terms of section 138(1)(b) read with section 150(d) of the National Credit Act, 2005 (Act 34 of 2005).

 

17.2.     There is no order as to costs.

 

 

 S Hockey (Presiding Tribunal member)

 Tribunal members Ms Z Ntuli and CJ Ntsoane concur.