Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 501
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
AASHNA ROY – Appellant
Versus
YOGESH DEVESHWAR & ANR. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1619 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In person
For the Respondents:Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. L.K. Bhushan, Ms. Aditi Awasthy, Mr. Srinivasan Ramaswamy
Consumer rights include compensation for negligence in service leading to physical and emotional harm.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 21 - Deficiency in service and medical negligence alleged by consumer against hotel salon for hair treatment and haircut resulting in harm - Law recognizes consumer's right to compensation for negligence. (Para 1, 25)
(B) Consumer Rights - Standard of care needed in service industries - Mismanagement and poor service reported in hair treatment leading to severe personal distress and economic loss for the complainant. (Para 18, 24)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, preparing for an interview, visited a hotel salon for hairstyling, resulting in a completely undesired haircut and subsequent hair damage due to treatment with harmful chemicals, leading to mental health issues and loss of employment opportunities. The complainant alleged misbehavior from staff and lack of proper service. (Para 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The hotel failed to provide due care leading to physical and emotional harm to the complainant, justifying the claim for compensation. The complainant was established as a consumer under the Act despite being initially provided the service for free. (Para 20, 25)
Issues: The court addressed whether the complainant was a consumer and tackled the question of pecuniary jurisdiction based on claimed compensation and service valuation. The legal obligations of service providers regarding consumer health and safety were also discussed. (Para 24, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complainant experienced significant harm due to negligence in service standards and awarded a sum that aims to address both the economic and emotional consequences faced by the complainant. Compensation was based on established legal principles assessing the severity and impact of service deficiency. (Para 24, 25)
Result: Complaint allowed partly; Opposite Party No.2 ordered to pay ₹2 Crore in compensation to the complainant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint about deficiency in service in a hotel salon leading to severe personal impacts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the poor service provided by the hotel salon and the complainant's emotional distress. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. opposite parties' defense regarding the provision of free services and implications for consumer definition. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. responses from the complainant and counterarguments to the claims made by the salon. (Para 19) |
| 5. court's reasoning for the judgment and determination of compensation based on emotional and physical harm. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT
1. The present Complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 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 13.04.2018, 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 03.05.2018, when the Complainant went Salon for hairs treatment, she was told that in-house hairdresser Vicky would do the
