Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal dismissed a claim of RM1,310.40 filed by a vehicle owner over alleged damage to his car’s rear defroster following a tint replacement service.
Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim said evidence showed that the risk of defroster damage had been clearly explained to the claimant before the service was carried out, and that the tint company, Premium Tinting Sdn Bhd, had taken reasonable steps to rectify the issues raised.
She made the decision after reviewing witness statements, photographs and supporting documents submitted by both parties.
According to the facts of the case, the claimant, Ismail, had sent his vehicle to the respondent’s workshop on July 5 for a full tint replacement.
The respondent’s staff informed him that the existing tint had been installed for six years and that there was a risk the rear window defroster could detach during the removal process. Ismail acknowledged and accepted the risk before work began.
The tint installation was completed without incident. However, three days later, Ismail contacted the company via WhatsApp, alleging that there were bubbles on several windows. The respondent, represented by Eric, arranged for an inspection and later replaced the affected tint films.
The claimant later alleged that the rear defroster was damaged during the rectification work and sought RM1,310.40 in compensation.
The respondent denied liability, maintaining that the risk had been clearly explained and accepted by the claimant, and that the defroster was already fragile due to age.
Salmi said the tribunal was guided by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, particularly Sections 53, 54(1) and 60(1)(a), which set out that service providers must perform their work with due care and skill, ensure reasonable quality of results, and allow consumers to seek remedies when defects occur.
“In this case, the tribunal finds that the respondent has met those obligations,” she said.
“The company had exercised reasonable skill and care, provided rectifications at no additional cost, and acted in good faith to resolve the issues.”Salmi added that the claimant had been fully aware of the potential risks involved and had agreed to proceed despite the warning.
“The tribunal concludes that the damage was not due to negligence and that the respondent had fulfilled their duty under the law,” she said.
