BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rameshwari Saini W/o Sh.Manoranjan Kumar, H.No.548, Sector 8, Panchkula (Haryana).

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

CLEOPATRA, Day Spa Beauty and Slimming, S.C.O. No.82-83, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

                                                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

Argued by:   Complainant in person.

Sh.Ashok Sharma, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL,  PRESIDENT

                   Succinctly put, the complainant visited OP on 5.11.2009 for straightening, smoothening & softening of her hair on account of her marriage to be solemnized on 21.11.2009 at Patna and for that, she paid Rs.5000/- vide bill dated 5.11.2009.  It is averred that as per the instruction of OP’s hair expert, who gave her said hair treatment, the complainant got the first wash & hair spa on 7.11.2009 i.e. after two days of taking said hair treatment, whereupon she found that most of her hair were burnt.  It is also averred that since the complainant was away to Shimla (H.P.) on 7.11.2009, she brought this matter to the notice of OP through several telephone calls but the OP did not pay any heed.  Ultimately, the complainant after her marriage visited the OP on 30.11.2009 and took up the matter with Tina, the concerned hair expert of OP.  However, to the shock of complainant, the said official of OP instead of accepting her mistake, insulted the complainant and asked her to use costly shampoos & conditioners.  It is asserted that due to the wrong hair treatment given by the OP as a result of which her hair were burnt that too at the time of marriage, the complainant had to face humiliation, immense mental tension and physical harassment.  Therefore, the present complaint has been instituted alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service.

2]                OP filed reply stating therein that the complainant visited their Centre on 3.11.2009 to enquire about the rebounding of hair whereupon, after examining her hair by the expert, she was also advised  to get smoothening of her hair to which she  agreed.  It is stated that the customers are explained the complete process of hair rebounding which includes the washing, treatment with shampoo and other conditioners and thereafter herbal treatment used to be suggested to the customers whose hair are dray, rough and in much damaged conditions.  The herbal treatment was not the part of the process prescribed under the rebounding kit instructions but the OP provided this treatment to its customers for healthy relations with longevity and durability.    It is admitted that complainant visited OP on 5.11.2009 and paid the amount and undertook the entire first day process in accordance with the instructions given in the Rebounding Kit to her satisfaction.  She was discharged from the centre on 5.11.2009 and was asked to visit again after two days i.e. on 7.11.2009 for the First Wash to the hair.  However, the complainant did not turn up on 7.11.2009 or thereafter for First Wash and rest of the treatment to complete the process and expressed on phone her inability to come.  It is also stated that the complainant took the next treatment/First Wash at Shimla herself though she had been asked not to do it personally.  It is submitted that since the process was not completed by the complainant herself, so the desired results could not be achieved.  Pleading no deficiency on the part of OP, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]                We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5]                It is admitted by the OP that the complainant had come to their parlour on 5.11.2009 when first day process of rebounding of her hair was given to her.  According to the OP she was directed to come on 7.11.2009 on which date she did not turn up but had rang her up showing her inability to come to the centre.  On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that she was away to Shimla and when she talked to the OP on telephone they told her to wash her hair at Shimla itself.  She accordingly followed their advice and when the hair were washed it was noticed that many of the hair had been burnt.  The complainant produced Annexure-A containing the itemized statement of her telephone calls showing that on 7.11.2009 she had made as many as six telephone calls to the OP during the period from 9.35 a.m. to 17.34 p.m. It shows that the complainant was very much concerned about the condition of her hair and cannot be said to have taken action contrary to the instructions given by the OP.  Moreso she was to be married on 21.11.2009 and was getting the treatment for that purpose and therefore could not have acted in any manner which could damage her hair.  The contention of the OP that she was directed not to wash the hair herself therefore cannot be believed in view of the circumstances narrated above.  The contention of the complainant rather appears to be correct that she showed her inability to come to Chandigarh to resume the further process of the rebounding of her hair and she was advised to wash her hair at Shimla itself and therefore she followed the same.  Apart from washing, the complainant had not done anything else which could damage her hair.  However when the hair were washed it was noticed that the some hair from front of her head had been burnt.  It could have burnt only due to the treatment given by the OP and not in any other manner.

6]                Annexure-A further shows that the complainant rang up the OP thrice on 8.11.2009. again thrice on 9.11.2009 and then on 10.11.2009.   The OP has now taken a false stand to avoid their liability for causing damage to the hair of the complainant.

7]                According to the complainant when she tried to inform the hair expert Tina about the damage, they did not hear her and alleged that she was busy or that she was to leave.  However, when she told the damage to the hair at the parlour on phone she was informed that such damage was possible in one percent cases and she was advised to use costly shampoo and conditioner.  The complainant has produced the invoice now marked Annexure B showing that on 10.11.2009 she had purchased lor professio worth Rs.5,25/- and shp loral pr. worth Rs.4,25/- totaling Rs.9,50/- from Shimla.  Annexure-B, therefore corroborates the version of the complainant and further shows that she was very much concerned about her hair and was doing everything for proper rebounding of her hair.

8]                According to the complainant she came to Chandigarh on 31.11.2009 after her marriage and went to the OP where she met the aforesaid Tina.  She did not behave properly with the complainant and rather misbehaved with her and insulted her.  Misbehaviour with the consumer after causing damage to her hair itself amounts to deficiency in service.

9]                The contention of the OP that the complainant was informed about the entire process of rebounding and the period after which the hair were to be washed or shampooed is not supported by any evidence.  No such chart if any maintained by the OP has been produced to corroborate this version.  Obviously when there are no written instructions with the OP the same could not have been given to the complainant.  This contention of the OP also appears to be false that the complainant was dissuaded  from getting the hair washed at Shimla or that further treatment should be got done by her from their parlour itself, as it is also not supported by any evidence.  We are therefore of the opinion that the contention of the OP putting blame for the damage to hair of the complainant cannot be believed.

10]              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP having not rendered proper service to the complainant is liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.5,000/- charged from the complainant vide receipt now Annexure-C dated 5.11.2009. The OP shall also pay to the complainant Rs.9,50/- worth which the shampoo and conditioner were purchased by her vide Annexure-B.  the OP shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for the damage caused to her hair, insulting her and also  letting her down at the time of her marriage when the hair were badly damaged by them.  The complaint is therefore allowed.  The OP is directed to pay the amount of to the complainant (Rs.5,000+Rs.9,50+Rs.5,000)=Rs.10,950/- alongwith Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e.  13.01.2010, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.