Case Study #1

In Jan 2016, Mr Thomas* purchased a second-hand car at

$22,300. Three days after collecting the car, he realised
that the engine check light was defective. The
salesperson, instructed him to get it fixed at their
recommended workshop. Mr Thomas visited the
workshop seven times but the problem remained
unresolved. He eventually went to a different service
centre and found that the catalytic converter was faulty.
In addition, he discovered that the actual mileage of the
car was more than what he was told. This information
was confirmed with the previous owner of the car.

CASE intervened and negotiated with the car dealer on

behalf of Mr Thomas. The company offered to purchase
the car back at $19,500 and Mr Thomas agreed.

Case Study #2

In March 2016, Mrs Tan* purchased a used car for

$28,000. She collected the vehicle five days later.
Whenever she drove the vehicle, she felt intermittent
jerking and vibrating when the vehicle was stationary.
She visited a motor vehicle workshop and was told that
the car belt had cracked and needed to be replaced.
Moreover, the mounting of the engine was also unstable.
Mrs Tan requested for the company to provide the
necessary repairs or replacement to the defective parts
at no added cost.

CASE highlighted the Lemon Law for defective goods to

the company. After discussion, the company agreed to
replace all relevant defective parts of the car for free.

Case Study #3
In August 2015, Mr Tony* bought a brand new car at
$133,800. In October 2016, his vehicle stalled in the
middle of the road and had to be towed back to the
workshop. In addition to this issue, his car's digital display
also showed several 'sensor errors'. To date, he had sent
in the vehicle for servicing five time. Mr Tony requested
for the company to provide him with an extended
warranty to give him the assurance that his vehicle will
continued to be taken care of.

CASE contacted the company with Mr Tony’s request and

was able to successfully negotiate with the company to
extend the car’s warranty for six months and to offer one
complimentary oil change and one grooming package.
Case Study #4
In February 2016, Mr Timothy* signed an agreement
with a car dealer to purchase a new car with an agreed
price of $99,800. He paid a deposit of $5,000. He was
informed by the salesperson who attended to him, that
he would be able to get a refund of the deposit, less
administrative charges, should he later wish to terminate
the agreement due to the COE price. When he requested
for termination of the agreement and a refund, the car
dealer refused.
CASE highlighted to the company that it is an unfair
practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act
(CPFTA) to make false claims in relation to a consumer
transaction. The company eventually agreed to provide a
refund of $4,295 to Mr Timothy as the final settlement.
Ms Chua* visited a beauty salon for an eyelash
extensions service. She was informed by the beautician
that if she purchased 30 facial sessions at $1,600, the
eyelash extensions would be complimentary. She would
also be given another two free sessions of eyelash
extensions valued at $100 each. Two months later, she
visited the salon for the complimentary eyelash
extensions. The beautician accidentally glued her right
eye shut causing her much pain. Ms Chua visited a doctor
and was diagnosed with cornea inflammation. She lost
confidence in the salon and requested for a refund of the
facial package and reimbursement for her medical bills.
CASE contacted the beauty salon and was able to
negotiate for a full refund of $1,600 together with $400
medical bill reimbursement for Ms Chua.

Case Study #2

Ms Wong visited a watch shop and requested to buy an

automatic watch. She selected a design that she liked and
paid $800 for the watch. Subsequently, the hands of the
watch stopped moving. Ms Wong sent the watch for
repair and only to find out that it was a quartz watch, not
an automatic watch. She requested to return the watch
for a refund as the salesperson had misrepresented the
product information to her. However, the shop rejected
her request for refund.

CASE highlighted that it was an unfair practice under the

Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act to make
misleading or false claims in relation to a consumer
transaction. Upon CASE’s intervention, the shop agreed
provide a full refund to Ms Wong.

• Right to safety.
• Right to be informed.
• Right to choose.
• Right to seek redressal.
• Right to represent.

Right to safety

Means right to be protected against the marketing of

goods and services, which are hazardous to life and
property. The purchased goods and services availed of
should not only meet their immediate needs, but also
fulfil long term interests. Before purchasing, consumers
should insist on the quality of the products as well as on
the guarantee of the products and services. They should
preferably purchase quality marked products such as
ISI,AGMARK, etc

Right to choose

Means right to be assured, wherever possible of access

to variety of goods and services at competitive price. In
case of monopolies, it means right to be assured of
satisfactory quality and service at a fair price. It also
includes right to basic goods and services. This is because
unrestricted right of the minority to choose can mean a
denial for the majority of its fair share. This right can be
better exercised in a competitive market where a variety
of goods are available at competitive prices

Right to be informed

Means right to be informed about the quality, quantity,

potency, purity, standard and price of goods so as to
protect the consumer against unfair trade practices.
Consumer should insist on getting all the information
about the product or service before making a choice or a
decision. This will enable him to act wisely and
responsibly and also enable him to desist from falling
prey to high pressure selling techniques.

Right to consumer education

Means the right to acquire the knowledge and skill to be

an informed consumer throughout life. Ignorance of
consumers, particularly of rural consumers, is mainly
responsible for their exploitation. They should know their
rights and must exercise them. Only then real consumer
protection can be achieved with success.
Right to be heard

Means that consumer's interests will receive due

consideration at appropriate forums. It also includes right
to be represented in various forums formed to consider
the consumer's welfare. The Consumers should form
non-political and non-commercial consumer
organizations which can be given representation in
various committees formed by the Government and
other bodies in matters relating to consumers.

Right to Seek redressal

Means right to seek redressal against unfair trade

practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers. It
also includes right to fair settlement of the genuine
grievances of the consumer. Consumers must make
complaint for their genuine grievances.Many a times
their complaint may be of small value but its impact on
the society as a whole may be very large. They can also
take the help of consumer organisations in seeking
redressal of their grievances.

As the markets are globalizing, the direct link between

the manufacturer and the final user getting distant, post
purchase grievances have to be heard through a strong
redressal system. For this, Consumer disputes redressal
agencies (popularly known as Consumer Forums or
Consumer Courts) are set up under the Act at District,
State and National level to provide simple and
inexpensive quick redressal against consumer complaints.
The District forum deals with complaints where the
compensation sought is less than 23 lakhs. This limit is
commonly known as the ‘pecuniary jurisdiction’ of the
Consumer Redressal Forum. The State Forum deals with
the complaints where the value of the goods and services
and compensation claimed does not exceed rupees one
crore and the National Forum entertains the complaints
where the value of the goods or services and
compensation claimed exceeds rupees one cror

Read more on Brainly.in -

https://brainly.in/question/10212885#readmore

Katy*, seven, knew she had a right to be safe.

She understood that she was entitled to be well looked

after including having food, shelter and warmth.

Katy was involved with social services because of issues

at home. During a meeting she told her social worker that
home was not a place where she felt safe.

Her social worker said Katy’s understanding of her own

rights gave her the tools and the words to talk about
what was happening at home. Using the language of
rights, learned at her Level 1 rights respecting primary
school, she explained that she had a right to be protected
but that her parents were not keeping her safe.

IN A CLASS OF THIRTY, SIX WILL EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE.

“Katy probably would not have disclosed that she felt

unsafe at home to her social worker had she not had that
understanding of what her rights were.”
HEADTEACHER
Learning about rights at school helped Katy to articulate
that she wasn’t feeling secure at home, that her parents
weren’t meeting her needs, and that this wasn’t how it
was supposed to be.

The headteacher said: “Katy probably would not have

disclosed that she felt unsafe at home to her social
worker had she not had that understanding of what her
rights were.”

Katy was eventually placed with another family. Even

though this was a very difficult process, Katy understood
the reasons why she had to be removed from her home.

She told adults at school that she knew she had the right
to be safe and to be well looked after and that, because
her parents weren’t able to do that, she had to move
away.

*Child’s name changed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81vOCqGMPdo