The Plaintiff concluded an Agreement of Purchase and Sale by agreeing to purchase an apartment with a business operator. Later, the Plaintiff found that the elevators in the building were not properly working. The Plaintiff sent a letter asking the business operator to fix the problem for several times, but the said problem had still occurred. In addition, a water heater inside the bathroom was wrongly installed, which may be harmful to life and property of the Plaintiff and other residents living in the same building. The business operator had ignored the said problem. The Plaintiff then lodged her complaints relating to such unsafe products to the Defendant No.1 on 10th and 11th October 2013. The Defendant No.1 did not issue a summon instructing the business operator to appear for giving statements or evidence as necessary for assisting in the consideration of competent officials until 10th April 2014, which was the date the Plaintiff filed a plaint to the Administrative Court of First Instance. The act of the Defendant No.1 was not consistent with the Consumer Protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979). Therefore, the Administrative Court of First Instance held that the Defendant No.1 performed its duty as required by the law with unreasonable delay. The Court ordered the Defendant No.1 to take action in investigating the Plaintiff’s complaints within forty-five days from the date the judgment is final. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed.

Academic_250322_100850.pdf (178.87B)

เลขที่ 120 หมู่ที่ 3 ถนนแจ้งวัฒนะ แขวงทุ่งสองห้อง เขตหลักสี่ กรุงเทพมหานคร 10210
โทรศัพท์ 0 2141 1111 อีเมล [email protected]
สงวนลิขสิทธิ์ © 2558 ศาลปกครอง