1. 1. HaslindabteHamzah versus Kumon Method of Learning Centre 2. Telekom Malaysia Bhd versus Tribunal TuntutanPengguna & Anor NUR IDIENTEE BINTI ABD HALIM (806092) ATHIRAH MOHD TAN (806265) ROSLAN BIN RIDZUAN (806481)

3. Court Of Appeal at Putrajaya. ( 2006 ).

4. The respondent ran a tuition centre and the appellant enroll three children in it.

6. The tribunal ordered the respondent to make a partial refund.

7. The respondent applied to the High Court for judicial review to quash the tribunal’s decision.

8. The judicial commissioner quashed the tribunal’s award on the ground that it had not given written reasons for its award in accordance with s 114 of Consumer Protection Act 1999.

9. The appellant appealed.

10. Now the appellant use the own name and Tribunal just for support their claims.

11. Tribunal like the middleman to settle the appellant judge to respondent.

13. Whether tribunal could order partial refund.

15. Tribunal has been conferred with extraordinary powers to do speedy justice for customers. Its awards should not be struck down save in the rarest of cases. Where it has misinterpreted some provision of the Act in such a way to produce an injustice. Court should be ever remindful that certiorari is not a remedy that is available as of right. It is not every error of law committed by an inferior tribunal that entitles the High Court to issues certiorari.

16. The High Courts do not, and should not, act as courts of appeal under art 226.

17. The appellant win in this case because more their evidence and support by the Tribunal and Consumer Protection Act 1999.

19. In my opinion. This case just about the refund the tuition fees, not big or much amount. No need settle all this in court, just waste time and money.

20. The Tribunal doing their task or function very well. Customer know where their can go if have the problems about the business transaction.

22. High court in Melaka

23. The applicant billed the second respondent for RM98 in relation to international calls said to be made by the second respondent to Papua New Guinea.

25. The applicant filed notice of motion for judicial review to nullify the decision made by the first respondent :

26. The tribunal was the wrong forum to bring the dispute to.

30. The judge believes that the second respondent had elected the wrong forum to bring the dispute to the tribunal as it is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal

34. We believe that tribunal should not have made this jurisdictional error.

35. Knowing that this case is not under the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the tribunal should have played their role of customer protection by providing insights and suggestions to consumers instead.

36. We believe that it is of a better benefit that the tribunal apply from the minister to include the transactions affected by electronic in the CPA 1999; or the inclusion s 188(1)(a) and (b) and s 190(1)(b) of the CMA 1998 in its jurisdiction.