Tiram Travel Sdn. Bhd. v Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna (BA-25-53-07/2025)

1.

MOHD SUBRI SAFAR BIN MOHD (No K/P: 841118-14-6125) ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 10) Introduction

On 31.10.2025, the Applicant was granted leave to file an application for judicial review against the Respondents.

Enclosure 10 is the Applicant’ substantive application for an order of certiorari to quash the whole of the First Respondent’s award dated 24.4.2025 in claim No: TTPM-B-(P)-177-2025 (Award) wherein the 2nd Respondent’s claim was allowed.

After considering the cause papers and submissions by the parties, this Court dismissed the Applicant’ application. The following are the reasons for the decision. Background facts

The facts, gleaned from the cause papers and supporting documents, leading to this application are as follows. The Applicant is a travel agency that provides Umrah and Ziarah packages. The 2nd Respondent paid for a 12-day 10-night Umrah package from 22.1.2025 to 2.2.2025 which costs

The package is subject to terms and condition which include that arrangements regarding flights and accommodation was subject to change.

The 2nd Respondent was promised accommodation at Kayan International Hotel, Madinah on quad sharing for 6 days 5 nights. Kayan Hotel was within walking distance to Majid Nawawi.

Upon arrival at Madinah, the 2nd Respondent and the other travellers were told that the reservations were cancelled and they were placed at Hotel Riyad Al Madinah and had to be transported to the mosque.

The 2nd Respondent was dissatisfied with the accommodation and food saying it was not up to the standard promised and the shuttle service was inadequate. He complained that the travellers did not get any assistance from the Applicant.

The Applicant responded that the reservation for accommodation at Kayan Hotel was booked through Aerostar Alliance Sdn Bhd, a local agent who handles all booking for the hotel. The reservations were cancelled at the last minute as the hotel was undergoing renovations.

Given that it was peak season, the Applicant had limited options and placed the 2nd Respondent and the other travellers on quad sharing at Hotel Riyad at additional costs to themselves. Arrangements were made to transport the 2nd Respondents and other travellers using a private shuttle bus, again at the Applicant’s own expense.

The 2nd Respondent filed a claim seeking RM1,000.00. On 31.10.2025, the First Respondent ruled in favour of the 2nd Respondent and ordered the Applicant to pay the 2nd Respondent RM1,140.00 within 14 days.

The Applicant contended that the Award was fundamentally invalid, irrational and marred by procedural impropriety. They argued that the First Respondent –

(i) failed to consider that the cancellation of the reservations at Kayan Hotel was done unilaterally, without notice and was something beyond their control;

(v) failed to consider similar claims by other travellers was dismissed; Principles of law

Judicial review is a process by which the High Court oversees the actions and decisions of public bodies including public authorities and tribunals.

The First Respondent is designed for quick, assessible and specialised resolution of consumer disputes. Unlike an appeal which functions as a rehearing of the merits of the 2nd Respondent’s claim, judicial review proceedings are strictly concerned with the legality of the decision making process.

This Court is tasked with the responsibility to examine whether the First Respondent acted within its jurisdiction, followed fair procedures and reached a conclusion that was no completely irrational. This Court cannot substitute its own decision in place of that of the First Respondent.

In essence, the Applicant’s complaint was centred around the First Respondent’s consideration of the evidence adduced by parties during the hearing. Findings of the Court

This Court was handicapped because there were no notes of the proceedings before the 1st Respondent or the grounds for the Award.

The Court considered the documentary evidence including the picture adduced by the 2nd Respondent of the alternative accommodation provided by the Applicant. It clearly contradicts the Applicant’s contention that the accommodation was given as promised although at a different hotel. The fact that the 2nd Respondent was left to arrange his own transportation to the mosque calls into question the Applicant’s contention that they provided “private shuttle service” for the travellers.

There is nothing unreasonable or irrational in the First Respondent rejecting the Applicant’s defence and allowing the 2nd Respondent’s claim.