Haryana

Kaithal

CC/247/2022

Neena Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hair Palace - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.S. Duhan

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.247/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 30.09.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:20.03.2023.

Neena Sharma Advocate W/o Sh. Mahender Pal, resident of Gali No.1, New Patel Nagar, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

The Hair Palace, London Luxury Salon, SCO-A20, Opp. Bal Bharti Public School, Sector-12, Branch at Dwarka, Delhi through its Prop./Branch Manager.

….Respondent.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. H.S.Duhan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Respondent exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Neena Sharma-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent.  

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the respondent is running a salon of grafting/extension the natural hair and for this purpose the complainant approached the respondent for getting the hundred hair extension and in this regard, the respondent has called the complainant on 25.06.2022 and on the same day, the respondent has done the grafting of hundred hair i.e. the act of placing a portion of one plant (Bud or scion) into or on a stem, root or branch of another (stock) in such a way i.e. union will be formed and in lieu of this work, the respondent has charged total amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and issued invoice No.1390 dt. 25.06.2022.  It is further alleged that the respondent had assured the complainant that there is guarantee of 2 years for the above-said hair grafting and if meanwhile during the 2 years, any grafted hair has been removed or broken from the natural hair, then either they will return the amount or treat the broken hair freely.  It is further alleged that now within the two months of the grafting of hairs done by the respondent, more than 50% of grafting has been either removed or broken from the natural hairs of the complainant and in this regard when the complainant approached the respondent for getting the repair of the same, then the respondent did not give any positive response in this regard and they got furious and gave threat to the complainant that if the complainant tried to come there again, they will teach him a lesson.    So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the respondent did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.23.11.20202 of this commission.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant approached the respondent for getting the hair extension on 25.06.2022 and the respondent has done the grafting of hundred hair i.e. the act of placing a portion of one plant (Bud or scion) into or on a stem, root or branch of another (stock) in such a way i.e. union will be formed and in lieu of this work, the respondent has charged total amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and issued invoice No.1390 dt. 25.06.2022 as per Annexure-C1.  It has been further argued that the respondent had assured the complainant that there is guarantee of 2 years for the above-said hair grafting.  It has been further argued that now within the two months of the grafting of hairs done by the respondent, more than 50% of grafting has been either removed or broken from the natural hairs of the complainant and in this regard when the complainant approached the respondent for getting the repair of the same, then the respondent did not give any positive response in this regard.  At the time of arguments, the complainant has placed on file photographs Mark ‘A”. 

6.             We have perused the invoice dt. 25.06.2022 which is Annexure-C1 wherein it is clearly mentioned in the column of Total Services as under:-

                “100 x Extension

                + Global

                + Smoothening”

             So, as per above-said invoice Annexure-C1, it is clear that the complainant has got done the grafting of hundred hair i.e. the act of placing a portion of one plant into or on a stem.  From the photographs Mark ‘A”, it is clear that the grafting was removed from the natural hairs of the complainant.  In the present case, respondent is proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the respondent.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant  and to pay Rs. Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted exparte accordingly.         

8.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against the respondent shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.