This follows a sessions court’s decision today to dismiss a striking-out application by Mercedes-Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd and Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd.

Sessions court judge Zawiyah Saad ruled that under the Hire-Purchase Act 1967, Affin Bank Bhd was the legal owner of the car, but the plaintiffs – Beyond Natural Group Sdn Bhd and directors S Aruna and G Hanulraj – had the locus standi to initiate the action.

“There are issues to be tried,” she said.

She ordered the defendants to pay RM8,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, represented by V Sivaparanjothi, said Affin Bank had given approval in writing for them to sue the defendants.

Zawiyah fixed a five-day trial from Oct 21 next year.

The plaintiffs’ case

In the suit filed in April, the plaintiffs claimed that the three-litre car, acquired for RM506,246.04, had experienced electronic and mechanical problems after its delivery on Nov 25, 2022.

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.

They said they will rely on the provisions in the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and the Consumer Protection Act 1999 to prove their case.

The plaintiffs want the court to compel the dealer, Hap Seng Star, to take the vehicle back.

They are also seeking an appropriate sum as general and aggravated damages, in addition to RM54,246.04 previously paid to the dealer, being the difference between the purchase price and the hire purchase loan sum of RM452,000.

The plaintiffs are also seeking a court order requiring the defendants to pay all future amounts due to Affin Bank under the hire-purchase agreement and to reimburse them RM157,600, being the total instalments paid to date.

In their statement of claim, they contend that they bought the vehicle in reliance on the defendants’ assurances and representations, contained in a brochure and otherwise made, that it was a luxury vehicle equipped with all essential safety and comfort features.

They alleged that despite these assurances and representations, the car began to experience multiple issues from December 2022.

They said they sent an email on Dec 2 last year requesting a replacement car, but 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 court document said, adding that they refused to collect the car after it was last repaired.

The defendants’ case

In its defence, Hap Seng Star said the warranty for the vehicle was given by Mercedes-Benz and it was, therefore, not responsible for the defects.

The company, represented by Julianne John and Nur Syafinaz Vani, said any claim should be directed to Mercedes-Benz.

However, Mercedes-Benz has taken the position that its obligation is to only make good the defects, which it complied with.

Lawyer Kumara Guru Naiker represented the car assembler.