Kerala

Idukki

CC/113/2019

Valsa Kumary k - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rosana - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 12.6.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of December, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.113/2019

Between

Complainant : Valsakumari K.,

Puthiyedathu House,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager / Proprietor,

Rosana,

Near Head Post Office, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Complainant is an LIC agent. On 22.1.2019, complainant approached opposite party, who is conducting a beauty parlour in the name and style 'Rosana', for smoothening her hair. Opposite party done the hair smoothening process by taking 2 hours and charged Rs.4500/- from the complainant as service charge. At the time of smoothening process, the complainant had suffered heavy heat and pain in the middle portion of the head and the matter was intimated to the opposite party on that time. But the opposite party has not cared it and proceeded her work. Within one week of this, the complainant suffered hair loss from the middle portion of the head, this was continued till all the hair fallen down from that portion. At the beginning stage of this, the complainant approached opposite party and requested her to adopt some preventive measures from falling of hair. But the opposite party handled it carelessly and this caused much mental agony to the complainant. Falling of hair affected her beauty of the hair. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to repay the service charges which she realised from the complainant along with compensation.

 

The notice issued from the Forum to the opposite party returned as, 'returned to sender'. It seems that the opposite party intentionally evaded from the acceptance of the notice by knowing the contents of the registered cover. Hence the opposite party set exparte. (cont....2)

- 2 -

Exparte evidence taken. Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant examined as PW1. Photograph produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.P1(series).

 

Heard.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for complainant and had gone through the records. On perusing the evidence, it is seen that none of the allegation levelled against the opposite party are not denied. Opposite party miserably failed to appear before the Forum to resist the allegation.

 

Hence the complaint allowed on the ground that the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallenged. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4500/-, the amount which she realised from the complainant as service charges along with Rs.1000/- as cost of this petition, within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of December, 2019

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Valsakumari K.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(series) - Photographs.

On the side of the Opposite Party : Nil. Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT