KUCHING: The Consumer Claims Tribunal here yesterday ruled in favour of a claimant who wanted an insurance pay-out to be made to the nominee instead of the policy holder.

Tribunal president Hussain Mohd Dewa found the case in the claimant’s favour because the respondent (insurance company) was not present.

However, the respondent is still eligible to reopen the case in the tribunal.

For now, based on yesterday’s ruling, the insurance company is required pay a sum of RM20,000 to the nominee, who is the policy holder’s daughter.

The insurance holder suffered a massive stroke earlier this year.

The claimant told the Tribunal that the money was needed immediately to care for the “mentally and physically handicapped” mother.

It is a reasonable request, said the claimant, for the insurance comp any to pay out the sum to the nominee.

“After all, that’s why the mother nominated her daughter in the first place,” the claimant argued.

The RM20,000 sum comprised a Permanent Disability Benefits Plan worth RM10,000, and a Savings Plan also RM10,000.

The insurance company had denied payment to the nominee on the grounds that the policy holder should receive the money.

Meanwhile, out of the 18 cases that were scheduled at the tribunal yesterday, only 10 were heard, but out of which four were withdrawn and two, rejected.

The postponed cases will be heard during the next seating here on July 8, while the rejected ones were primarily due to unreasonable claims.

One rejected case, for example, involved a claimant who said his home theatre set constantly broke down — “when the volume is turned up” — because the equipment sold to him were “mismatched”.

The speakers and the amplifier, the claimant said, were of different brands and different specifications.

A representative of the retailer, however, told the Tribunal that the different makes of the equipment were “clearly stated in our company brochure”.

Based on a copy of the brochure that was submitted as evidence, Hussain ruled that the case had to be rejected.

But as is the norm at the Tribunal, both claimant and respondent continued to bring up new information, dragging on the case for more than an hour.

For example, the claimant said the frequent breakdowns were the result of “the woofer (for bass) being too powerful for the amplifier”.

“Every time I turn up the volume, it automatically shuts off. Then I have to get their people to come fix it,” he said.

To this, the company representative responded that all repairs are provided free of charge under the four-year warranty period.

At this juncture, the claimant interjected that the reason “for it spoiling is always the same”.

“It’s because the amplifier is different from the woofer. The woofer is too powerful!” he added.

But said the Tribunal president: “(That’s because) you are going over the (volume) limit.

“Use it according to the specifications.

“That’s why you have to look at the brochure.”

Rejected cases, the tribunal said, could only be brought forward to the High Court or Appeals Court if the claimant was not satisfied.

On withdrawn cases, a Tribunal official told The Borneo Post that many were due to forms that were not properly submitted.

‘Borang 1’ (Form 1), for instance, has to be either hand delivered or sent with an “Acknowledge Receipt”.

“Most consumers do not know that AR is different from a normal registered mail. Borang 1 has to be with an AR,” the official said.