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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/withdrawal-of-complaint-case-analysis-by-the-court/
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.
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. 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.
Excess Ammonia was used during the treatment which completely damaged her hair and scalp resulting into lot of irritation and burning in the scalp.
The appellant, arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC, filed separate written objections and raised several objections: doubting the status of respondent being a consumer as the services rendered were free of charge, the claim of compensation was highly exorbitant, no documentary evidence had been adduced for such a huge claim, the complaint deserves to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. It also recorded a finding that on account of faulty hair styling the looks of the respondent may have changed.
The NCDRC also recorded a finding that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in providing the hair 9 treatment to the respondent and also damage caused in the scalp. The NCDRC, based upon the evidence led which included the affidavits, photographs, CCTV footage, whatsapp chats and other material on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service. In the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modeling which the respondent was 12 likely to get or even the interview letter for which the respondent alleges she had gone to the saloon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the compensation under these heads.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/enhancement-of-maintenance-amount-a-legal-analysis/
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the NCDRC fell in error by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation.
In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the respondent if she has material to substantiate her claim may be given an opportunity to produce the same. This Court while issuing notice vide order dated 29.10.2021 had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.
Case Title: ITC LIMITED Vs. AASHNA ROY (2023 INSC 100)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006391 / 2021
