- Tribunal orders Motors & More to refund R4,599 for the third defective engine after the supplier refused to assist.
- Earlier defective engines were replaced and do not constitute prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Tribunal rejects request for R1 million administrative fine and interdict, emphasising supplier accountability and consumer rights.
Mfundo Ntlombe’s frustration with Motors & More began in June 2022 when he purchased an engine for his vehicle. What followed was a series of defective replacements, mounting costs, and months of uncertainty, culminating in a National Consumer Tribunal judgment.
The Tribunal ordered the supplier to refund Ntlombe R4,599 for the repair of a third defective engine, while dismissing other claims.
According to the National Consumer Commission, which referred the matter to the Tribunal, Ntlombe paid R12 500 for the first engine, which was delivered to Noord Boland Meganiese Dienste for installation. “Two days after collecting my car, it stopped functioning,” Ntlombe said during his testimony.
The technicians found multiple defects, including a faulty oil filter, thermostat, oil seals, sealant-sump, sump gasket, and spark plugs. He returned the engine to the supplier, who replaced it with a second engine, installed on 18 August 2022, at a cost of R10 356.56.
Third engine defects prompt Tribunal intervention
The second engine also failed, with the cylinders unable to ignite due to insufficient compression. When a third engine was provided, it too was defective, leaking oil. “The supplier refused to replace the third engine and stopped responding to my emails,” Ntlombe told the Tribunal. Left with no choice, he had the engine repaired at a cost of R4 599.30 in July 2023.
The Tribunal carefully considered the timeline and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It found that the first two engines had been replaced and therefore did not constitute ongoing prohibited conduct. As the judgment explained, “the respondent afforded the complainant the replacement remedy prescribed under section 56(a) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Nothing more needs to be said about this aspect.”
Tribunal orders refund, rejects fines and interdict
However, the Tribunal found the third engine defective, and Motors & More’s refusal to assist Ntlombe violated sections 55 and 56 of the Act. The presiding member, Dr A Potwana, stated, “In view of the undisputed evidence that the third engine manifested defects and rendered the vehicle unsafe to drive, we find that Motors & More contravened section 55(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the CPA. The refusal or failure to refund the complainant constitutes a contravention of section 56(2)(b).”
The Tribunal dismissed the request for an administrative fine of R1 million, noting the supplier had already replaced two engines and there was no evidence of the respondent’s annual turnover. The prayer for an interdict and declaration of contravention of section 51 of the Act was also refused.
In the end, the Tribunal ordered that Motors & More refund Ntlombe R4 599, marking a partial victory for the consumer in a drawn-out struggle with a supplier who failed to provide durable and defect-free goods.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
