Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal ordered a man to refund RM1,260 to a buyer who cancelled the purchase of a used Proton Exora after discovering during the ownership transfer process that the vehicle did not have valid insurance or road tax.
Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim delivered the decision, on Tuesday, after reviewing statements, WhatsApp messages and photographs submitted by both parties.
Advertisement
The respondent was given 14 days to make the payment.
According to the facts of the case, the claimant, Razma Edorus, test-drove a Proton Exora 1.6 (Auto) on April 11, 2025, and expressed interest in purchasing the vehicle for RM15,000 under the condition of “Jualan Cuci Tangan Tinggal Pakai” (sold as-is, ready to use).
She paid a RM2,000 deposit to the respondent, Mohd Ashraf Tan Abdullah.
On April 12, the respondent brought the vehicle to Puspakom for inspection, and on April 14 both parties met at the UTC Kota Kinabalu Road Transport Department (JPJ) to proceed with the ownership transfer.
However, during the process, the claimant discovered that the vehicle did not have valid insurance or road tax, leading her to reject the purchase. Through a phone conversation between her husband and the respondent, she requested that the transaction be cancelled and the deposit returned.
The respondent later informed her on April 15 that insurance and road tax had been renewed, but the claimant maintained her decision to cancel.
On April 17, she contacted the respondent again for a refund, but he said he could only return RM500 first, with the balance to be paid later.
Dissatisfied, the claimant lodged a police report and filed a claim before the Tribunal seeking a full refund of the RM2,000 deposit.
Salmi noted that there was no written proof showing the claimant had asked about the insurance and road tax prior to the attempted transfer. She also found no verification from either party that the car was sold under the purported “Jualan Cuci Tangan Tinggal Pakai” term.
“The claimant had the right to ask for the actual meaning of the term, and the respondent had a responsibility to avoid misrepresentation by giving complete clarification,” she said.
Salmi added that the claimant had informed the respondent—through WhatsApp messages—that she would bear the cost of the ownership transfer and asked him to arrange it. However, she said this applied only to the initial transfer process on April 14.
Since the respondent had already refunded RM500, the Tribunal ruled that the claimant was not entitled to claim the entire deposit.
Citing contract law, Salmi explained that a contract fails when consideration is not completed.
Under Section 45 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, a consumer may reject goods by notifying the supplier and stating the reasons for the rejection. Section 46 then entitles the consumer either to a refund or a replacement of similar type and value.
“As the claimant returned the vehicle to the respondent on April 14, the respondent must refund the amount paid,” she said.
However, she ruled that the Puspakom inspection fee (RM200) and JPJ transfer fee (RM40) should be deducted, as the claimant had agreed to bear those costs.
Insurance and road tax—which were only renewed after the rejection—cannot be charged to the claimant.
