A GROUP’S plan to spend their holidays together in South Korea went awry due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Their plan to depart to Seoul on Nov 8 last year on a 5D/4N package failed to materialise because of the movement control order in Malaysia and the worsening situation overseas.
However, subsequent efforts to get a refund from a Kuala Lumpur-based tour company was unsuccessful, prompting them to turn to the Johor Baru Consumer Claims Tribunal in Menara Ansar.
The claimants were Fatin Nabilah Ahmad Tajudin, 26, Priscilla Jose, 50, Sarina Jamil, 38, Suziana Rubai@Rubai’i, 43, Hazlinda Hassan, 48, Sharifah Rozzi Syed Ali, 38 and her brother Syed Haizul Nizam, 27.
“Each of us paid a RM1,000 deposit for the RM2,999 package on Feb 6 last year, ’’ Suziana said when met.
However, a week or so after banking in the money, South Korea reported a spike in Covid-19 cases.
Suziana said the group was worried but hoped that the situation would be under control as South Korea had not closed its border to international travellers.
“At that time, Malaysia also had not imposed the MCO, which was only implemented on March 18, ” she explained.
The group decided to cancel the trip on finding that the Covid-19 situation worldwide had worsened day by day.
Suziana said they informed the tour company of their decision in June and asked for their deposit to be refunded.
“The company declined and demanded that we pay the balance of RM1,999 for the package, but we refused, ’’ she said, adding that they were, in fact, entitled to a full refund as their request had been made 90 days before the departure date.
Tribunal Court president Abdul Rashid Daud ordered the company to return the deposit to the claimants within 14 days.
Separately, a senior operations manager at an e-waste recycling company took up a case against a leading electronics and electrical retailer in the country.
Arief Alimuddin, 40, had on Aug 12,2018 pre-ordered a smartphone costing RM3,699 with the retailer at an outlet in a shopping centre in Johor Baru.
Arief said he received the phone three days later but it started giving problems in August last year.
On Aug 3, he sent the phone, which came with a two-year warranty ending Sept 1,2020, to the retailer for repairs.
The company’s technician called the claimant on Aug 15, and informed him that the telephone was damaged due to water or some other liquid.
“I told him that the model was supposed to be water-resistant, ’’ he said.
Abdul Rashid ordered the respondent to repair the phone as it was still under the warranty period.
Did you find this article insightful?