The plaintiffs — Beyond Natural Group Sdn Bhd, S Aruna, and G Hanulraj — claim the three-litre car, acquired for RM506,246.04, had experienced ongoing electronic and mechanical problems since it was delivered to them on Nov 25, 2022.
“As a result, the plaintiffs have completely lost all trust and confidence in the vehicle,” they said.
They also claimed the particular car model had been “subjected to a recall” since March 2022 but that the defendants had deliberately withheld this “critical information” from them.
In the suit filed by law firm V Siva & Partners on Tuesday, the plaintiffs said they will rely on the various provisions contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and the Consumer Protection Act 1999 to prove their claim.
They want the sessions court here to compel the dealer to take the vehicle back.
The plaintiffs also want the court to order the defendants to pay them an appropriate sum as general and aggravated damages.
They are also seeking to recover the sum of RM54,246.04 previously paid to the dealer, being the difference between the purchase price and the hire purchase loan sum of RM452,000.
They also want the defendants to bear all future sums due to Affin Bank Berhad under the hire-purchase agreement. They also ask to be reimbursed in the sum of RM157,600, being the total of all monthly instalments paid under the hire-purchase agreement to date.
In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of the insurance premium paid on the car amounting to RM11,219.90, service charges of RM6,618.15 paid to the dealer, and RM12,800 being the cost of paint protection film incurred.
Aruna and Hanulraj are also asking that the court award them general damages for pain, suffering, stress, mental anguish and trauma.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs claimed that the car was purchased based on various assurances and representations set out in a brochure and made by the defendants that the vehicle was a luxury premium item equipped with all essential safety and comfort features.
The plaintiffs claim that despite these assurances and representations, the car began to experience multiple issues from December 2022.
On Dec 2 last year, the plaintiffs sent an email requesting a replacement car, but claimed that, despite acknowledging receipt of the message, the defendants took no action.
“The lack of engagement from the defendants only intensified (the plaintiffs’) frustration, leading to a sense of being trivialised and completely disregarded,” the statement of claim read.
The plaintiffs have also refused to collect the car after the vehicle was last repaired.
On Dec 27, the plaintiffs sought to be compensated monetarily.
Lawyer V Sivaparanjothi told FMT the cause papers were served on the defendants on Wednesday.