1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner purchased a piece of cloth measuring three meters for a price of Rs.1200/- per meter and total sum of Rs. 3600/- bearing light brown /Camel like colour. After purchasing the said cloth the petitioner gave the cloths for stitching to his Tailor (Fancy Fabric & Tailors situated at Shop No. 5-6 Nawab Plaza Allama Iqbal Town, Moon Market Lahore) on 20-6-09 .When the petitioner went to the Tailor's shop for taking the suit on 2-7- 09 then the Tailor told him that there was a defect in the cloth as whenever the cloth was ironed/pressed the said cloth (suit piece) colour was changed and a bluish type colour appeared/ vanished on the cloth, this time when the petitioner came to know about the said defect that the complainant on 5-7-09 approached the respondent and made a complaint for the matter of fading. Then the respondent retained the cloth (suit piece) for their expert's perusal and after that the complainant visited the respondent for 3/4 times but all in vain. It is also version of the petitioner that in the presence of the petitioner and respondent's employee, laundry man checked the same and found the same defective. Hence notice was sent on 15-7-09. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner his case falls within purview of Consumer Court and purchase of cloth has been admitted by the respondent. It is also Abdullah Saim Mehmood V/s Bashir Sons admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that suit was purchased in January 2009 but gave to the Tailor in June 2009 and cause of action arose when suit was giving for stitching . Hence the same well in time. According to him there no need to mention the colour of the cloth in the Tailor receipt.
2. 2 Diametrically learned counsel for the respondent has stated that suit was purchased in January 2009 and after using it for six months when it was got damages by misuse of the petitioner then they have filed a baseless and frivolous complaint. According to him it was a tropical Walloon which is always the steam press whenever it is expose to the iron it will be damaged. According to learned counsel for the respondent the petitioner has admitted in cross examination that he had been using this kind of suits for the last 7 and 8 years.
3. 3 In order to appreciate the matter in hand I reverts my intention to the deposition made by Ishfaq Ahmad RW-1 who has been working with the respondent for 25 years. According to him he knows the quality of cloths and their shops enjoys good reputation because of good product quality, goodwill and customer trust relationship. He has admitted that cloths sold out to the petitioner was a tropical Walloon, according to him they did not give in writing to the customers regarding precautionary use of cloths. According to him it depends upon use of cloth regarding life of cloths that how it uses. According to him a Tailor and Laundry man takes all the precautionary measures while pressing the cloth. He has admitted that cloths Abdullah Saim Mehmood V/s Bashir Sons sold to the petitioner were of excellent quality and if there was defect pointed out lateron we would be responsible for that.
4. 4 Simple bare reading of the testimony made by the RW-1 shows that the selling of the cloths to the petitioner has been admitted. It is also admitted that in case of defect his firm would be fully responsible 5 According to PW-1 he knows the general information regarding suit wearing and he has been visiting the Fancy Tailors for stitching of suits since 2002-03. According to him he has turned it incorrect that he used the suit for 5/6 months and then damaged it by negligence, improper ironing . Ex-P/2 is purchase receipt. Mark P/A is a Tailor receipt.
5. 6 For deciding the matter I would like to rely on section 4 of the PCPA 2005 which comes within the definition of a defective product and according to section 4 sub section 2 (C) reads as under.
6. A product shall be defective only if a) it is defective in construction or composition as provided in section 5. A product shall be defective in construction or composition of, at the time the product was manufactured a material deviation was made from the manufacturer own specification, whether known to the consumer or nor.
7. Similarly section 21 of PCPA 2005 deals about the false or deceptive or misleading representation.
8. The petitioner case is within the definition of the consumer, hence the claim of the petitioner is decided in the way that Abdullah Saim Mehmood V/s Bashir Sons respondent shall pay Rs. 3600/- as price of cloths , Rs. 2500/- stitching charges and Rs. 10,000/- as mental torture to the petitioner. In this way total claim is decreed to the extent of Rs. 16100/- where remaining claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed being on the higher side. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. After completion file be consigned to record room.