House buyers can split claims to stay within tribunal’s RM50,000 limit, says apex court

 

The Federal Court said that aggrieved purchasers are entitled to an easy, cheap and quick avenue when claiming compensation from housing developers. (Reuters pic)

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has ruled that an aggrieved house buyer can file two separate claims in respect of the same property with the home buyers’ tribunal to bring his case within the tribunal’s jurisdictional limit of RM50,000.

Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal said the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act, 1966 is a piece of social legislation designed to protect house buyers.

“It is, therefore, imperative that the sections be interpreted in such a way as to provide protection for house buyers in keeping with the intention of Parliament,” Harminder said in a written judgment released on March 6.

“The objective is to protect aggrieved purchasers of their rights to resort to the tribunal, which provides for an easier, cheaper and quicker avenue to claim compensation from housing developers.”

Harminder, who sat with Justices Vernon Ong and Zaleha Yusof to hear the appeal, said the filing of two separate claims involving different matters did not run contrary to sections 16M and 16Q of the Act.

The written judgment follows an oral pronouncement made a year ago by the apex court which allowed an appeal by purchaser Remeggious Krishnan against SKS Southern Sdn Bhd (previously known as MB Builders Sdn Bhd).

The landmark ruling overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal in November 2020 and restored the judgment of the High Court made the previous year.

Krishnan had filed two separate claims before the tribunal in respect of property valued at about RM570,000 which he purchased in Johor Bahru in February 2017.

The first was a technical claim grounded on the failure of the developer to provide adequate ceiling height and for protruding beams and pillars which was valued at RM40,000.

The second was a non-technical claim for about RM50,000 premised on the delivery of vacant possession without electricity connection.

Harmindar said each claim, when taken separately, did not exceed the tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction of RM50,000.

“Since both of the appellant’s claims were grounded on different and distinct matters and each of the appellant’s claims was well within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, we were in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court,” he said.

Addressing the question of whether a house buyer could file a claim for RM80,000 in liquidated ascertained damages by splitting it into two claims of RM40,000 each, the judge said:

“In such a case, the tribunal may exercise its discretion to disallow such claims to be split in order to prevent the purchaser circumventing the monetary jurisdiction of the tribunal.”

The judgment was prepared in accordance with section 78 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 after Zaleha retired in May last year. - FMT