KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has dismissed an appeal by three directors and shareholders of a travel and tour company in a civil suit.
In a judgment dated Feb 11, Justice Leong Wai Hong upheld the Sessions Court’s ruling that the appellants had committed fraud by failing to refund RM492,480 paid by umrah pilgrims after their trips were cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The appellants are Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff.
The respondent, KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, arranges umrah and hajj packages for Malaysian pilgrims to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
In delivering his decision, Justice Leong described the case as a troubling instance of greed overriding the spiritual aspirations of pilgrims who had paid to fulfil one of the five pillars of Islam.
He held that there was no basis to interfere with the Sessions Court’s findings of fact, noting that the evidence on record amply supported its conclusions.
“I dismiss the appeal with costs of RM20,000 on the ground that it has no merit. The Sessions Court judge, after hearing the witnesses, found as a fact that fraud had been committed.
“An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact of the trial judge without good reason,” he said.
However, the appellants filed a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on Jan 8 this year.
Following a full trial, the Sessions Court found that the defendants had committed fraud and allowed the plaintiff’s claim for RM492,480.
According to the facts, the defendants were directors and shareholders of Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, a travel and tour agency providing reservation and related services.
In February 2020, the plaintiff engaged Rehla to secure and purchase flight tickets to Madinah or Jeddah for the plaintiff’s clients, and remitted RM492,480 to the company for that purpose.
As an appointed ticketing agent for Malaysia Airlines Bhd (MAB), Rehla remitted payment to MAB for the purchase of the flight tickets. The bookings were confirmed, and MAB issued Passenger Name Records.
However, following the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic, MAB cancelled the tickets. During that period, Rehla also ceased operations.
The plaintiff contended that the RM492,480 paid to Rehla ought to be refunded to its customers. The defendants refused, maintaining that Rehla acted solely as MAB’s ticketing agent and that the ticket payments had already been transmitted to MAB.
They further argued that the plaintiff’s claim for a refund should be directed to MAB, not Rehla, since the payments had been made to the airline for the tickets.
The appellants were represented by Mohd Shahril Madisa, while Teoh Bi Shan appeared for the respondent. – BERNAMA
