Second Hand Purchase: Notice issued over defective phone
Petitioner submitted that he had purchased a second-hand mobile phone from Adnan Mobiles at Hafeez Centre.
LAHORE:
A consumer court on Friday issued the proprietor of a mobile phone shop a notice in a suit seeking Rs100,000 damages for allegedly selling a defective mobile phone.
Petitioner Muhammad Adnan submitted that he had purchased a second-hand mobile phone from Adnan Mobiles at Hafeez Centre.
He said the proprietor had assured him that the mobile had no defects and given a two-day warranty.
Adnan said when he took the phone home, he realised the phone’s keys were not working properly.
He said he told the proprietor about the problem who told him that the keys were stiff but would function properly after a few days.
Adnan said that the keys did not function properly even after 15 days had passed.
When he took the phone to the respondent, he told him to buy a new casing for the phone.
Adnan said that the proprietor eventually refused to change the phone’s casing.
He prayed the court to direct the proprietor to pay him Rs100,000 damages. The proprietor said the keys were working fine. He said Adnan had contacted him about the problem after the warranty had expired.
“The phone Adnan bought was second hand. Such defects do prop up after a while,” he said.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2013.
A consumer court on Friday issued the proprietor of a mobile phone shop a notice in a suit seeking Rs100,000 damages for allegedly selling a defective mobile phone.
Petitioner Muhammad Adnan submitted that he had purchased a second-hand mobile phone from Adnan Mobiles at Hafeez Centre.
He said the proprietor had assured him that the mobile had no defects and given a two-day warranty.
Adnan said when he took the phone home, he realised the phone’s keys were not working properly.
He said he told the proprietor about the problem who told him that the keys were stiff but would function properly after a few days.
Adnan said that the keys did not function properly even after 15 days had passed.
When he took the phone to the respondent, he told him to buy a new casing for the phone.
Adnan said that the proprietor eventually refused to change the phone’s casing.
He prayed the court to direct the proprietor to pay him Rs100,000 damages. The proprietor said the keys were working fine. He said Adnan had contacted him about the problem after the warranty had expired.
“The phone Adnan bought was second hand. Such defects do prop up after a while,” he said.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2013.