DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.168/2017

Ms. Chhavi Banswal

D/o 7372/B-10, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi- 110070

….Complainant

Versus

Looks Unisex Salon

D-90 B, 100 Feet Road,

Chhattarpur, New Delhi- 110074

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :     16.06.2017   

 Date of Order            :    25.11.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.14,040/- i.e. Rs.9,440/- for the services and Rs.4,600/- for the products purchased along with Rs.30,000/- as damages for physical and mental agony, pain and suffering and also Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost. OP is Looks Unisex Salon.
2. The complainant states that she got her hair perming (Permanent Hair Curling) at the salon of OP.
3. It is stated that she started losing hair after a week of the procedure.  It is stated by her that her hair is bent around 1cm from the scalp and is breaking from the point of the bend.  It is stated by her that it was negligence on the part of the hair-dresser, which has caused this hair loss and is not an unexpected reaction to the chemicals as there is no damage on the scalp.
4. It is stated by her that she met perm expert Mr. Naresh from the OP salon and showed him the nature of damage who stated that he would speak to his manager and come up with suitable compensation.
5. It is stated by the complainant that after a few days she met one Ms. Namrata from the OP Salon who apologized for the damage by stating that it was a result of ‘over processing’, however she tried to shift the blame by giving absurd explanations which did not explain why the complainant was losing hair only from one side of the crown and hairline.
6. It is stated by the complainant she was offered by the said Ms. Namrata to take her money back and would also be provided three free hair spa treatments within 30 days to control further hair loss.
7. It is stated by the complainant that when she informed the OP about her taking legal recourse she was told that her hair damage was probably a result of her own carelessness and that OP cannot take responsibility for her hair beyond 30 days of free hair spa.
8. It is stated by the complainant that she has only used the products that were recommended by the OP and since she continues to lose her hair, is seeking compensation so that she can get suitable hair treatment to control and reverse the damage caused on her hair.
9. OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.10.2017. Complainant’s evidence Ex-parte is on record.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following:

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

11.  It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the parties and find that complainant has not been able to discharge its onus.
12.  It is seen from the record that apart from placing on record bills for services/products of OP, no expert opinion or any other document to corroborate her case has been placed on record to prove the fault of the OP therefore; the complaint is dismissed to be devoid of merits. No order as to the costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.