IMPORTANT POINT
“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 emotional sufferings, insult or injury or loss.

ORDER

The Consumer Complaint No. 1691 of 2018 was filed by the Complainant, Ms. Aashna Roy against the Opposite Parties, ITC Limited and its Chairman (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Opposite Party”), alleging deficiency in service on their part in cutting the hairs again her instructions. The said Complaint was allowed by this Commission vide Order dated 21.09.2021 directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the Complainant for wrong cutting the her hair. The said Order was challenged by the Opposite Party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing the Civil Appeal No. 6391 of 2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its Order dated 07.02.2023 while affirming the finding of this Commission regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, had remanded the matter to reconsider the quantum of compensation and granted liberty to the Complainant to file the material to substantiate her claim.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant visited the saloon of the Hotel of 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 for her hair cutting, but owing to her unavailability, the Complainant was assisted by another hair dresser namely, Ms. Christine. Complainant gave specific instructions to the said hair dresser as “long flicks/layers covering her face in the front and at the back and 4 inch straight hair trim from the bottom”. Due to her high-powered spectacles (removed at the time of hairstyling), the Complainant could not clearly see herself in the mirror during her hair styling. Complainant was told by Ms. Christine that she was being given a “London Haircut”. When the hair styling was complete, Complainant was shocked to notice 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 to her by the Complainant. With respect to the afore-mentioned incident, complaints were made to Mr. Zubin Songadwala, General Manager of the Saloon and Mr. Dipak Haksar, CEO of ITC Limited but to no avail. It is the case of the Complainant that later on, an offer for free hair extension service was provided to her by the Salon wherein, she was informed that the in-house hair dresser, one Mr Vicky would do the Mohair treatment under the supervision of Ms Alem. Complainant went for her treatment on 3.05.2018, however once again it turned out to be a fiasco for her as excess Ammonia was used during the treatment which completely damaged her hair and scalp resulting into lot of irritation and burning in the scalp which made her hair hard and rough. According to the Complainant, she faced humiliation and embarrassment due to her short hair as she never had short hair before. For both these incidents, she made complaints to the higher authorities but it was futile as no action was taken. Being aggrieved, she filed the Consumer Complaint No. 1619 of 2018 before this Commission, seeking a written apology and a compensation to the tune of Rs.3 crores for harassment, humiliation, mental trauma, loss of career, loss of income and loss of future prospects etc.

3. The said Complaint was disposed of by this Commission vide Order dated 21.09.2021 by observing as under:—

“20. With regard to the Preliminary Objection taken by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined u/s 2 (1)(d) of the Act since no consideration was paid for hair cutting and treatment, we do not find any substance in the said contention. It cannot be believed that the Opposite Party No.2 which is established for profit motive, would provide free services with huge infrastructure, trained staff and management. As stated above, the Complainant has made the payment of Rs.1,770/- from the Card issued by