A car dealer which disputed a warranty claim by a customer as "wear and tear" has been ordered to honour it anyway.
SG Vehicles, a parallel importer of popular European and Japanese cars, sold a Mercedes-Benz E250 to real estate agent Shiow Suk Fay in 2010 for $178,000.
The car had a seven-year warranty - double what authorised agent Cycle & Carriage offered.
Last October, the car broke down because of a failed power steering pump, which had to be replaced. The part is listed in a warranty booklet that came with the car.
Madam Shiow, 44, now a housewife, had the car towed to an SG Vehicles-appointed workshop, but was told that the faulty item was not under warranty.
After a long and "unhappy debate", she had it fixed at another workshop for $1,010.
She sought reimbursement from SG Vehicles, but failed. In January this year, she filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal, and in April the tribunal ordered the company to pay up.
SG Vehicles paid up last week, but maintained that the steering pump failed because of "wear and tear", adding that the car was "already five years old".
"This is not a case of the seller not honouring the warranty," said its director Mark Poh. But "given the amount involved, we do not see any point in incurring legal costs to (file an) appeal".
Mr Poh also said the original workshop that was engaged to underwrite the seven- year warranty had closed down.
Consumers Association of Singapore executive director Seah Seng Choon said: "Parallel importers usually don't have their own workshops, so they engage third-party workshops.
"But to deny responsibility because a workshop had closed down is ridiculous. I don't buy that."
Mr Seah added that the seller should find another workshop to honour the warranties.
Madam Shiow's case is similar to what another SG Vehicles customer faced three years ago.
General insurer Don Ho, 59, bought a BMW 528i, which developed air-conditioner problems within a year. He had them fixed, but had to pay for the repairs.
After failing to get compensation from SG Vehicles, he took the firm to court. The State Courts ruled in favour of Mr Ho.
Madam Shiow, after going through the latest case, said: "My husband and I feel that the money is rightfully paid to us... but what we got is not sufficient to cover the effort and cost we incurred.
"No more parallel imports for us."
This article was first published on June 4, 2015.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.