Consumer court: Defective phone ruins a picnic
The proprietor claims that he did not sold Majid a defective phone.
At the time of purchase, the proprietor had assured that the mobile phone's camera would work, says petitioner. PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
A consumer court on Friday issued the proprietor of a mobile shop a notice for August 30 in a suit seeking Rs100,000 damages for allegedly selling the petitioner a defective mobile phone, because of which the petitioner was unable to take pictures during a trip to Murree.
Petitioner Majid submitted that he had purchased a second-hand NOKIA C3 mobile phone for Rs3,000 from the proprietor of Majid Mobile in Hafeez Centre, on July 15.
He said he bought the phone with the purpose of using it to take pictures when he went to Murree for vacation. He said that at the time of purchase, the proprietor had assured him that the camera would work.
When he asked the proprietor to replace his phone, Majid said, he refused.
The proprietor said he had not sold Majid a defective phone. He said he had told Majid that if he wanted pictures of better quality he would have to buy a more expensive phone.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2013.
A consumer court on Friday issued the proprietor of a mobile shop a notice for August 30 in a suit seeking Rs100,000 damages for allegedly selling the petitioner a defective mobile phone, because of which the petitioner was unable to take pictures during a trip to Murree.
Petitioner Majid submitted that he had purchased a second-hand NOKIA C3 mobile phone for Rs3,000 from the proprietor of Majid Mobile in Hafeez Centre, on July 15.
He said he bought the phone with the purpose of using it to take pictures when he went to Murree for vacation. He said that at the time of purchase, the proprietor had assured him that the camera would work.
When he asked the proprietor to replace his phone, Majid said, he refused.
The proprietor said he had not sold Majid a defective phone. He said he had told Majid that if he wanted pictures of better quality he would have to buy a more expensive phone.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2013.