Parties settle television repair dispute with M200 refund and free inspection
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The customer sought M650 back after reporting the same fault. The agreement provides a smaller refund and an inspection, with any further repairs subject to separate agreement.
The settlement agreement
Lineo Ralebese and repairer Thabo Mokhele have settled their television repair dispute with an agreement for a M200 refund and one free inspection. Ralebese had sought the return of M650 paid for additional work, while accepting the initial M250 diagnostic fee.
The dispute concerned whether work that did not resolve a reported recurring fault still justified the additional charges. Mokhele maintained that he had performed authorised work and that the television operated during a 20-minute test. Ralebese sought repayment because the same shut-off problem reportedly persisted.
The matter concerned the Magistrate's court serving Maseru, but the supplied record contains settlement terms rather than a judicial ruling on the quality of the repair or entitlement to a refund.
The agreed terms
Mokhele is to refund M200 before the inspection and retain the M200 parts charge. One free inspection is to be scheduled within 14 days. Any further work or replacement parts will require a separate agreement.
The settlement therefore provides less than the M650 refund sought, while allowing another examination of the television without an inspection charge. It does not promise that the fault will be fixed, identify any replacement component or authorise additional paid repairs.
The parties' positions
Ralebese's claim focused on the reported persistence of the original fault after payment of M450 for labour and M200 for parts. The diagnostic fee was not part of the refund request.
Mokhele disputed returning all the additional charges. He said he personally cleaned terminals and fitted a small component after an in-person discussion authorising further work. In his account, the successful test and work performed meant that a recurring fault did not establish that no service had been provided.
He nevertheless acknowledged that the fault might have returned after collection and that his records could have been better. His stated position included willingness to retain the parts cost while reducing the labour charge.
The background
The television was brought in because it switched off after a few minutes. Mokhele charged M250 for diagnosis, then carried out further work. At collection, Ralebese paid the additional M650 recorded on the invoice.
The paperwork left important gaps. The intake slip required customer approval before further work, but there was no written approval. The job card did not identify the fitted component or detail the labour and diagnosis, and no supplier receipt or inventory record tied a part to this job.
Those gaps sat alongside Mokhele's account of verbal permission and a successful test. The settlement resolves the immediate refund demand on agreed terms without determining whether the work was adequate or why the television's fault reportedly recurred.