Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
ITC LIMITED – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AASHNA ROY – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6391 OF 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Modelling – Hair styling – Faulty haircut – Compensation of Rs.2 Crores awarded by NCDRC – NCDRC recorded a finding that length of hair of respondent had been shortened contrary to her instructions – NCDRC also recorded a finding that there was negligence on part of appellant in providing hair treatment to respondent and also damage caused in Scalp – Question as to whether there was a deficiency in service or not would be a question of fact – Court not inclined to interfere with said finding regarding deficiency in service as same is based upon appreciation of evidence and would be a pure question of fact – In absence of any material with regard to her existing job, emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modelling which respondent was likely to get or even interview letter for which respondent alleges she had gone to Saloon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess compensation under these heads – What could be quantified was compensation under head of pain, suffering and trauma – However, amount of Rs. 2 Crores would be extremely excessive and disproportionate – Respondent if she has material to substantiate her claim may be given an opportunity to produce the same – Once deficiency in service is proved then respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible under law – Order of NCDRC awarding Rs.2 Crores as compensation set aside and matter remitted to NCDRC for fresh decision. (Paras 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal under Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assails correctness of order dated 21st September, 2021 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.1619/18 between Aashna Roy versus Yogesh Deveshwar and another. NCDRC by said order allowed the complaint filed by the sole respondent herein and awarded compensation of Rs.2 Crores to be paid by Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC i.e. the present appellant.
Findings of Court:
This Court while issuing notice vide order dated 29.10.2021 had directed appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, which has since been deposited with the Registry and is placed in fixed deposit. The above amount along with accrued interest be transmitted to NCDRC within 2 weeks. NCDRC while deciding the matter afresh may pass appropriate orders with respect to the said amount.
Result : Appeal allowed with directions.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assails the correctness of the order dated 21st September, 2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1[‘the NCDRC’] in Consumer Complaint No.1619/18 between Aashna Roy versus Yogesh Deveshwar and another. The NCDRC by the said order allowed the complaint filed by the sole respondent herein and awarded compensation of Rs.2 crores to be paid by the Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC i.e. the present appellant.
2. The background giving rise to the filing of the complaint by the respondent is briefly stated herein:
2.1 The respondent visited the saloon of the Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for hair styling so that she would have a clean and groomed appearance before the interview panel where she was to appear after a week. She requested for one Ms Alem the hair dresser who regularly used to cut her hairs on several previous visits to the saloon. As Ms Alem was not available, another hair dresser namely Ms Christine was assigned to do the hair styling of the respondent. The respondent, despite her not being satisfied with the services rendered by Ms Christine on previous occasions, accepted her services on the assurance of the Manager of the saloon that Ms Christine has shown great improvement in her performance over a period of time.
2.2 The respondent gave specific instructions to the said hair dresser in the following terms: “long flicks/layers covering her face in the front and at the back and 4-inch straight hair trim from the bottom”. The respondent was instructed to keep her head down and as she wears high powered spectacles (removed at the time of hairstyling), she could not clearly see herself in the mirror as to what the hair dresser was actually doing. According to the respondent, the instructions given were simple and would not take much time but when the hair dresser took more than an hour to do the hair styling, she questioned the hair dresser as to why she was taking so much time. She received an answer from the hair dresser that she was giving her “the London Haircut”.
2.3 When the hair styling was complete, to her utter surprise, she noticed that the hair dresser Ms Christine had chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching to her shoulders which was quite contrary to the instructions given by her. She immediately complained to the Manager of the saloon Mr Gurpreet Acharya. As she had made a complaint, the Manager did not raise any bill. However, she left the saloon completely annoyed and frustrated.
2.4 According to the respondent, as a result of the faulty haircut, the respondent could not continue to lead her normal busy life as she no longer looked pretty; she had to face great humiliation and embarrassment; her career in the world of modelling was completely shattered; she went into a state of depression.
2.5 In connection with the fiasco which took place on 12.04.2018, the respondent made a complaint to the General Manager of the saloon Mr Zubin Songadwala to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the hair dresser. Mr Songadwala, instead of being courteous and apologetic to the respondent, was rude and said that she was free to take any action against the saloon. Thereafter, the respondent also called upon the Chief Executive Officer of ITC Limited Mr Dipak Haksar and apprised him of the entire episode. It is also the case of the respondent that her hair was being sold by the saloon.
2.6 The saloon later offered the respondent services for extension of hair for the interview and also for free treatment to which she apparently agreed. The saloon arranged an external technical hair expert from MoeHair (an international brand) to extend the services. She was advised to repeat the treatment for 2-3 times.
2.7 The respondent again went for hair treatment on 3.5.2018. She was informed that the in-house hair dresser Mr Vicky would
Question as to whether there was a deficiency in service or not would be a question of fact – Once deficiency in service is proved then consumer is entitled to be suitably compensated under different....
“Compensation” - It is trite that the word “Compensation” is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation of physical, mental or even emot....
Negligent service in hair treatment constitutes deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, justifying significant compensation for emotional and professional harm.
Compensation claims in consumer disputes must be substantiated by credible evidence, and reliance on photocopies without originals is insufficient to justify substantial damages.
(1) Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation, that the purchase of the said flat is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.(2) Housing Construction - The ex....
The court emphasized the principle that the High Court should not substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by authorities below unless the decision shocks the conscience of the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
