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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in <strong>2011</strong>- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Case Details<strong>2011</strong>/10/06 – FTDN47<strong>2011</strong>/01/10 – FTDN1<strong>2011</strong>/02/15 –FTDN9<strong>2011</strong>/02/21 –FTDN11Consumer Gvs. CompanyNInstitution A-ExclusiveDealings ofSchooluniforms byretailers inLabasaConsumer Hvs. CompanyOInstitution Avs.Companies Pand BOn 6 th October, <strong>2011</strong>, Consumer G lodged a complaint against Company Nfor supplying the wrong PVC hand gloves as per their agreement through e-mail. Company N however supplied the green hand gloves instead of thered ones. Consumer G returned the hand gloves to Company N on 24 thAugust, <strong>2011</strong> and asked for his refund of $2500. <strong>The</strong> Complainant wasadvised to take his case to the Small Claims Tribunal since Consumer Gwas claiming $2500 for the wrong hand gloves supplied by Company N.On 10 th January, <strong>2011</strong>, Institution A alleged that In Fashion was engaging inexclusive dealings with regards to the sale of school uniforms of a PrimarySchool. An Investigation revealed that the Traders were not engaging insuch practices; however a caution letter was given to the Ministry ofEducation officials – Secondary & Primary and to the retailers of schoolsuniforms in Labasa.On 15 th February, <strong>2011</strong>, Institution A lodged a complaint on behalf ofConsumer H against Company O for selling poor quality shoes. During theinvestigation, Company O confirmed that they were willing to replace theshoes. However, the Complainant’s phone numbers were unreachable andcould not be contacted.On 21 st February, <strong>2011</strong>, Institution A lodged a complaint against Tow BusCompanies for using “Not refundable” in their tickets and not returning faresif the passenger wished to get off the bus before it left. <strong>The</strong> complaint wasinvestigated and the case was referred to the Land Transport Authority. <strong>The</strong><strong>Commission</strong> requested the Land Transport Authority to devise a mechanismto ensure proper tickets were issued and refunded.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeRestrictiveTrade PracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedOut ofJurisdiction –Referred toSmall ClaimsTribunalSection 69Section 75Section 15 (I),76 – Referred toLand TransportAuthorityPage158of236

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!