DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.536 of 2016
Date of institution: 01.09.2016 Date of decision : 13.07.2017
Pooja daughter of Ajit Singh, resident of Ward No.9, House No.428, Kurali, District, Mohali.
….Complainant
Versus
Lakme Beauty Salon through its Manager, SCO No.74, Phase-5, Mohali.
…..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri G.S. Walia, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Saurav Bhatia, counsel for the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant who is aged 24 years and a family was coming to see the complainant on 23.07.2016 for matrimonial talks. In order to tone up her body and beautify herself, went to the OP for which the OP charged Rs.4,497/- for different treatments vide sale ID No.571 dated 19.07.2016. After 2-3 days, the complainant developed rashes on all her body and it was so severe that blood started oozing and there was burning sensation which started giving unbearable pain. The complainant contacted the OP who admitted its fault and returned the whole of the amount but failed to get the complainant treated and asked the complainant to go out and consult some skin specialist. The complainant consulted the skin expert Dr. Paramjit Singh Walia who took Rs.400/- as consultation fee and prescribed medicines worth Rs.1582/-. The doctor informed the complainant that it could take 6 months to get relief and opined that the scratches could be of permanent nature. The complainant could not appear before the family who had come for matrimonial purposes which caused depression and complex in the mind of the complainant. The rashes and scratches developed due to negligence of the OP. The complainant could not attend her business for more than a month which caused loss of Rs.50,000/- to her. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay her compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for negligence of the OP.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing reply in which it has been pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is stemming out of malice intentions and based on false accusations without any shred of proof. No cause of action has arisen to the complainant. On merits, it is pleaded that there has been no direct relation between the beauty treatment and the rashes caused on the body of the complainant as the complainant herself has admitted that the rashes occurred after lapse of 3 days. The OP has denied rest of the averments of the complaint and also denied any deficiency in service on its part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; treatment slip Ex.C-2; statements of account Ex.C-3 and C-4 and three photographs Ex.C-5 to C-7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel tendered in evidence affidavit Chhinder Kumar, Manager of the OP Ex.OP-1/1.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the rashes and scratches appeared on the body of the complainant due to the negligence of the OP. He has further argued that as per the opinion of the doctor the scratches can cause permanent defect to the complainant. The OP admitted its fault and returned the whole amount charged from the complainant. Learned counsel has argued that the act of returning the amount shows that there was negligence on the part of the OP and due to this negligence the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and also suffered loss in her business.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that there is no nexus between the rashes and scratches on the body of the complainant as it is the own admission of the complainant that the rashes and scratches developed after 2-3 days. The counsel for the OP has also argued that when there is no fault of the OP the return of amount charged from the complainant is a concocted story just to get relief from this Forum. Learned counsel has further argued that in the prescription slip of Dr. Paramjit Singh Walia, it is no where mentioned that the rashes and scratches occurred due to the beauty treatment given by the OP to the complainant.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the OP. The complainant in Para No.3 of the complaint herself has stated that the rashes and scratches developed on her body after 2-3 days of the beauty treatment taken by her from the OP. We have perused the prescription slip Ex.C-2 and nowhere mentioned in it that the rashes and scratches developed to the complainant due to beauty treatment given by the OP. The contention of the counsel for the complainant that when the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the OP, it returned the amount charged by the OP is also without any basis as no proof regarding return of the amount by the OP has been produced by the complainant. Thus, we hold that the complainant has been failed miserably to prove any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 13.07.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
