This is a complaint made by one Mrs. Chhabi Maity, wife of Mr. Rohini Nandan Maity, residing at 14/1, Dakshin Behala Road, Kolkata-700 061, against (1) Loreal India Pvt. Ltd., registered address at 4th floor, Horizon Building, 57, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 071, OP No.1 and (2) Bina Paul, owner of Venus Ladies Beauty Parlour, 51/5, Biren Roy Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700 008, praying for direction upon the OPs to pay the medical expenses of Rs.3,000/-, facial cost of Rs.800/-, litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and compensation amount of Rs.3,97,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is a company having its registered office at Maharashtra, OP No.2 is a distributor of the product of OP No.1 and the owner of Venus Ladies Beauty Parlour and carrying on business on 51/5, Biren Roy Road. Complainant on 2.5.2015 at about 7 p.m. visited the beauty parlour with her daughters viz. Sangita Maity and Sanghamitra Maity. Complainant in order to attend a social gathering got her facial done at the beauty parlour. On the advice of the beauty parlour facial cream “Snovite” was used for facial which is a product of Loreal India, OP No.1. On 3.5.2015 at about 1 p.m. her younger daughter and relatives informed her that her eye side was swelling and suggested her to visit an eye specialist. Complainant immediately informed the OP No.2 over telephone regarding the infection and sent the photographs to the OP. Complainant also felt some itchiness on her face and neck and with some eye problem she went to Drishti Eye Care Centre where she was advised to take some medicines. The skin specialist informed Complainant not to use this product in future. Complainant informed the OP No.2 immediately. She sent e-mail on 4.5.2015 to OP No.1. On 5.5.2015 an expert team came to the house of the Complainant who informed them that the Complainant used Garnier hair colour and that Garnier hair colour is also a product of the Loreal company. On 5.5.2015 Complainant again felt some irritation on her face and neck. Complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,97,000/-.
OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainant. Further, OP No.1 has stated that one Mrs. Tania Sengupta, Technical Educator, along with Avimannyu Ghosh visited the residence of the Complainant and informed that her skin was affected for using Snovite. However, OP No.1 Stated that Complainant has used Garnier hair colour on the next date of facial and due to the use of hair colour the infection took place. Further, OP No.1 has stated that loreal is world wide company and so there is no service deficiency on the part of the loreal and also on the part of the company also. OP No.2 also filed written version where she has denied the contention of the Complainant and stated that the using of garnier hair colour might have caused infection. Accordingly, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons :
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has stated the facts mentioned in the complaint against this OP No.1 has put certain questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. In the affidavit-in-reply, Complainant has stated that snovite is a product of OP No.1 and after using the product she suffered infection.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the relief which she has prayed.
OPs have also put their evidence stating the facts which they have mentioned in their respective written version to which Complainant has put questionnaire and OPs have replied.
On perusal of the document, it appears that Complainant has filed certain Xerox copies of receipt showing payment of Rs.3,170/- to the Venus Ladies Beauty Parlour. This receipt was issued in the name of Sanghamitra and Chhabi Maity. Further the prescription of Dristi Eye Care Centre and some prescriptions of Dristi Eye Care Centre have been filed showing that Complainant was compelled to purchase certain medicines.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to pay medical expenses of Rs.3,000/- and facial cost of Rs.800/-.
Considering the documents and the evidence on the record, it is clear that there were certain infections due to which Complainant suffered, it might be due to hair colour which Complainant used with infection occurred. But, admittedly that hair colour is also the product of Loreal India Pvt. Ltd. who is OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the owner of Venus Ladies Beauty Parlour. So, in all probability it was the duty of OP No.2 to ask the Complainant not to use any hair colour for a specific period. As such, the liability which appears is joint and several of both the parties.
Now, the question remains for how much amount the Complainant is entitled. Considering the circumstances, if a direction is given upon the OP to pay Rs.3,800/- as prayed by Complainant with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- by which justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
RBT/CC/140/2016 and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to pay Rs.6,800/- to the Complainant within 2 months of this order, in default, the amount shall carry interest of 10%p.a. till realization.
