Court of Appeal quashes decision by Consumer Affairs Authority in case filed by AMW

Thursday, 26 November 2020 02:06 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The Court of Appeal by Judgement dated 16 November quashed a decision taken by the Consumer Affairs Authority dated 27 November 2014 in respect of a motor vehicle purchased from Associated Motorways Ltd.

The case was instituted by Associated Motorways Ltd. against the Consumer Affairs Authority (1st Respondent) and Savinda Enterprise Ltd., whose complaint led to the inquiry by the Consumer Affairs Authority.

Associated Motorways Ltd. inter alia took up the position that the mandatory quorum of four members of the authority was not satisfied at the inquiry held by the Consumer Affairs Authority and therefore any decision taken at the said inquiry should have no validity in law.

When the matter was argued on 23 September in the Court of Appeal, Counsel appearing on behalf of Savinda Enterprise Ltd. (the 2nd respondent) took up a Preliminary Objection on the ground that the supporting Affidavit to the Petition of Associated Motorways Ltd. was defective. However, the two justices who presided, Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena and Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere, rejected the said Preliminary Objection in their Judgement.

The Court of Appeal in its Judgment dated 16 November considered the Objection of the Petitioner, AMW, in respect of quorum for the constitution of the Consumer Affairs Authority Panel, without going into the merits of the case. The Justices held with Associated Motorways and decided that the quorum requirement was not satisfied at the inquiry held before the Consumer Affairs Authority and quashed the decision taken on 27 November 2014 by the Consumer Affairs Authority.

The Justices also expressed displeasure at how the members of the Consumer Affairs Authority act in discharging their professional duties and stated that the authority owed it to taxpayers to ensure to comply in respect of the mandatory provisions of law, and emphasised that the subject minister should take these matters into consideration and prevent such irregularities in the future. The Petitioner was represented by Dr. Harsha Cabral PC with Thishya Weragoda AAL and the 1st Respondent was represented by Suranga Wimalasena SSC while the 2nd Respondent was represented by Channa Ranasinghe AAL.