DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.369/2014

1.      Ms. Sanjana Khurana

R/o A-33, Nizamuddin East,

New Delhi-110013      

2.      Ms. Chandni Dewan

          R/o C-24, East of Kailash,

          1^st Floor, New Delhi-110065                    ….Complainants

Versus

Ms. Sonakshi Budhraja Gandhi

Studio: D-303,

Defence Colony,

Varun Marg,

New Delhi-110024                                                  ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      17.09.2014         Date of Order   :      06.12.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Case of the Complainants, in nutshell, is that the complainant No.1 availed the services of OP, who is a reputed makeup and hair stylist running her studio-cum-salon, on the occasion of her brother’s wedding ceremony (marriage on 18.11.13 and reception on 20.11.13).  According to the Complainant, the OP claimed to provide the best services and quoted her fee of Rs.5,000/- for complete make up i.e. hair style as well as for draping (i.e. Rs.3000/- for the make up, Rs.1500/- for hairdo and Rs.500/- for the draping). It is stated that the OP booked the date of 18^th and 20^th November and told the complainant No.1 to make an advance payment of Rs.2000/-. Later on, the OP demanded Rs.6000/- which was also paid by the complainant No.1.  It is stated that since the marriage was to be solemnized shortly on 18^th November, 2013 the complainant No.1 & 2 contacted the OP and requested her to give appointment to her cousin sister (complainant No.2) which was also duly acceded by the OP.  On 18.11.2013 prior to an hour of visit of the complainants to the salon of OP, the OP contacted the complainant No.1 at about 2 p.m. over phone and instructed them to get their hair washed before coming as the OP was not having the facility of hair wash in her salon and further the complainants were advised to remove makeup which was against the earlier assurances and representations made by the OP. It is submitted that after getting their hair done from some other salon in Defence Colony, both the complainants reached to the salon of the OP where they saw that the OP was running a salon in a room from her residence and  two other ladies were also sitting there who were not appearing to be  professional and no other hair stylist or trained  professionals were available there as represented by  the OP.  It is stated that both the complainants were totally disgruntled by the services provided by the OP and after getting incomplete hairdo done the complainants decided not to avail her service anymore. At the time of making the payment, the OP asked for an amount of Rs.7500/-. The complainants reminded her that they had already paid an advance amount of Rs.6000/- and they were required to pay only Rs.4500/-. To this, the OP started talking loudly and insisted the complainants to pay Rs.7500/- despite the fact that the services provided by the OP were extremely poor and OP further told the complainants that if they do not avail her service on the next date of appointment the money paid by them for the second appointed date stood forfeited. Finding no option, the Complainants paid an amount of Rs.7500/- to the OP and left the salon which made the complainants tensed and upset.  Thereafter, the complainants sent a legal notice dated 10.01.14 to the OP but no response has been received from the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainants have filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OP:-

1. to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of payment till the date of actual refund,
2. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.
3. to award the cost  of litigation.

In response to the complaint the OP has inter-alia stated that she is a graduate in B.A (Hons.), Miranda House, University of Delhi and a post-graduate in the field of Fashion from National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), New Delhi and hold a professional degree in Fashion Media Make-up from Pearl Academy of Fashion, New Delhi. It is stated as under:-

3       (a)      Complainant no 1 had contacted  me  from the number 9560815307 with the keenness to get her make-up done by me for two occasions dated 18/11/13 and 20/11/13, saying  she had seen my work and loved it and would want to get the make up by me. I requested her to come to my settlement up and discuss and also get a trial if she likes, but she being very sure and keen to get it done by me insisted that she will send the advance through someone. No   brake-up of charges was given to the complainant no 1 (opposed to what is written in the complaint), it was rs.5000 per person including make-up-, hair-do and draping, for a single occasion.

          (b) The advance amount decided between complainant no 1 and me was rs 3,000/- each for both the days, since make-up- products had to be purchased for the make-up. Hence, complainant no 1 sent the total of Rs.6,000, ie Rs 3,000/- for each day.

          (c) Before the first make-up day, ie 18^th,  complainant no1 contacted me and booked for her cousin sister, Chandini diwan, complainant no2 for 18/11/13. Complainant no1 promised that complainant no2’s payment of rs 5000/- will be made on the make-up day itself ie on 18/11/13.

          In point noA, the complainant has herself mentioned that the brake-up included make-up, hair-do and draping only; then how can she assume that hair-wash service would be included. She has clearly mentioned the service break-up in her complaint, then from where does the question of hair wash arise.

          For the eye make-up, where the complainant no1 has claimed that I had called her up before coming that she must remove all make up or eye make-up and if I do it the eyes would bleed, first of all why would a client come to me with prior done make up when she is already coming for a make-up. Secondly, why would a client come to me after hearing that I will make their eyes bleed.

          (d) At the time of booking, I had requested complainant no1 to visit my resident where I do make-up and also offered her a trial to which she refused saying she has seen my work and will come on the wedding day ie 18/12/13. So it was clear that I operate from my residence and I have never represented as to run a salon in any advertisement.

          (e) The make-up, hair do, draping on both the complainants on 18/12/13 was done up to the best of their satisfaction and according to their personal taste and choice.

          (f)       After getting the make-up done on asking the balance payment from both the complainants, to my surprise they started asking for discount to which I requested to honour the prior commitment and please to pay my balance. But to my shock, both of them teamed up and started negotiating and misbehaving and harassed me. I was traumatised by their rude behaviour, so they forced me to agree that they will pay the balance amount of Rs.7000 on 20/12/13 ie the second make up day.

          (g)      On the day of the second make up ie 20/12/13 complainant no1 didn’t  turn up for make-up. I called her on her number ie 95608155307 she did not answer my call. I also messaged her on the same number to ask what time she come, to which there was no response. Hence, my balance amount of rs 7000/- is still unpaid.

It is prayed that the complainants be directed to pay her due amount for all hard work did on them.”

          Complainants have filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

          Right of complainants to file affidavit in evidence was closed vide order dated 18.11.15.

          No affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of the OP.          Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.

The complainants have not advanced his oral arguments even though this Forum has given chance to argue the matter. We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the OP.

Onus to prove the facts pleaded in the complaint was on the complainants. However complainants have not even filed their affidavit in evidence. As stated hereinabove, the OP in the reply has denied the averments made in the complaint and has rather claimed balance payment of Rs. 7,000/- from the complainants. Therefore, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 06.12.2017.