Negligent service in hair treatment constitutes deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, justifying significant compensation for emotional and professional harm.

1. The present Complaint, under S.12 read with S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, i.e. Yogesh Deveshwar, Chairman, ITC Company Ltd. and ITC Ltd. in cutting and treatment of her hairs at the Salon of Hotel ITC Maurya and medical negligence in hair treatment.

2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant, Ms. Aashna Roy was to appear before an Interview Panel. On 12.04.2018, a week before the interview, she visited to the Salon of Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi (Group of ITC Hotels) for hairstyling to have a clean and groomed appearance before the Interview Panel. She asked for hairdresser, namely, Alem who used to cut her hairs on various visits to Salon. But since, she was not available in the Salon, another hairdresser, namely, Christine, was told to do the hairstyling of the Complainant in her place. Though the Complainant was not satisfied with her services in the past but on the assurance of the Manager of the Salon that she had improved her work, the Complainant agreed to have hairstyling from her. According to the Complainant, she specifically instructed the hairdresser, Christine for long flicks / layers covering her face in the front and at the back and 4 inch straight hair trim from the bottom. It is alleged in the Complaint that as the Complainant was wearing high powered spectacles and was requested by the hairdresser to keep her head constantly down, she was not able to see herself clearly in the mirror. She further averred that it was a simple haircut but when the hairdresser took more than an hour to do the hairstyling, she questioned about more time and replied by the hairdresser that she was giving her a "London Haircut". However, to the utter shock and surprise of the Complainant, the hairdresser, Christine chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching to her shoulders for which she was not instructed by her. She complained about hairdresser to the Manager of the Salon, Gurpreet Acharya and she was not given any bill for hairstyling though generally she was earlier being charged heavily. It is stated that because of the hair cutting the Complainant was not looking pretty and she stopped to lead her normal busy life.

3. On 13.4.2018, as no action was taken against the hairdresser, the Complainant called the General Manger of the Salon, Mr. Zubin Songadwala, to look into the matter, however, he misbehaved with her stating that she was free to take any action against the Salon. Consequently, the Complainant called Mr. Dipak Haksar, CEO of ITC Ltd. and apprised him of the entire episode. It is alleged that on 14.04.2018, the Complainant came to know from the conversion of the staff of Hotel that her hairs were sold by the Salon. An offer was also made to her by the Opposite Parties for extension of hairs for interview or for treatment of hairs free of costs for which she agreed after lot of persuasion. Opposite Parties arranged an external Technical Hair Expert from MoeHair and Complainant was advised to repeat the treatment for 23 washes.

4. On 3.5.2018, when the Complainant went Salon for hairs treatment, she was told that in - house hairdresser Vicky would do the treatment under the supervision of Alem. She agreed for that as the Hotel staff convinced her that Vicky is trained and very good in his work. However, during the hairs treatment, her hairs and scalp got completely damaged with excess ammonia and there was lot of irritation in the scalp. Complainant asserted that the hairdresser scratched and cut her entire scalp with his nai