11.07.2015 Views

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in <strong>2011</strong> in Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Case Details<strong>2011</strong>/06/27 –FTDN32Consumer Ivs. CompanyOOn 27 th June, <strong>2011</strong>, Consumer I lodged a complaint against Company O forselling him a faulty phone. An Investigation revealed that Company O hadalready given Consumer I a new replacement phone, however Company Oofficials explained that the memory card was full and that resulted in theslowing down of the phone’s data processing speed. <strong>The</strong> case was resolvedthrough mediation and it was explained to Consumer I that he could not berefunded since Company O was willing to repair the phone under warranty.<strong>2011</strong> /05/31 –FTDN33<strong>2011</strong>/06/05 –FTDN35Consumer Jvs. CompanyPConsumer Kvs. CompanyQOn 31 st May, <strong>2011</strong>, Consumer J lodged a complaint against Company P forbeing charged $0.34 for 72 units of kwh usage of electricity. An Investigationrevealed that Company P had computed the bill through average dailyusage whereby monthly usage was found to be more than 75 units.Justification was provided to Consumer J that his average daily usageremained high, hence the reason he was charged at $0.3484 for each unit ofelectricity consumed.On 5 th June, <strong>2011</strong>, Consumer K alleged that Company Q did not fulfill theirwarranty conditions. <strong>The</strong> warranty period for a headset, battery and chargerwas for 1 year and 3 months for electronic malfunction, liquid or physicaldamage. <strong>The</strong> phone was purchased by the Complainant on 27 th November2010.An Investigation revealed that the phone was sent to Suva for repairs on05/06/<strong>2011</strong>. On 28 th June, <strong>2011</strong>, Company Q sent the Job sheet and it wasrevealed that the battery was at fault and liquid damages were also visible. Itwas explained to the consumer that he was only being charged for liquiddamages and not for battery malfunctions as per the warranty conditions.<strong>The</strong> consumer was advised to pay the charges and take his phone.Provisions ofCCD2010ConditionsandWarranties inConsumerTransactionsDivision1 –WarrantyConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 112Section 76 & 84Section 88Page149of236

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!