BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.34/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 5^th March, 2020

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by Kishan Ramesh to direct the opposite party VLCC Health Care Ltd., Mysuru to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice.
2.        The complainant has got fixed hair patch on 21.09.2018 from the opposite party by paying Rs.70,000/-.  Few days later, the complainant started experiencing hair fall from the hair patch.  The complainant has brought to the notice of the Manager of opposite party, but nothing has done to rectify the problem.  Hence, this complaint.
3.        The opposite party appeared through its learned counsel and filed version contending that the complainant has not made out of a case to prove any kind of deficiency in service on its part.  On the contrary, the opposite party has provided the best quality service towards complainant’s issue.  The opposite party denied that the complainant has been experiencing service mental trauma which has affected life style and same has lead him to depression.  The opposite party further denied that the complainant was unable to attend the job interview for this reason.  The complainant had not maintained the past treatment care which he ought to do.  The opposite party denied that the company had offered any kind of warranty of the product and services as these are the cosmetic treatment and results vary from person to person and it had been upon various factors which are not in the control of the opposite party. 
4.      It is further case of opposite party that as a good corporate gesture and to retain the customers, the company had offered the complainant for replacement of product and avail the services without any additional charges.  But, the complainant out of greed did not accept the offer and approached this Forum to extort money from the company.  The company is still willing to provide the service and replace the product as a good corporate gesture.
5.    The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and marked Exhibits P.1 and P.2 and also produced video CD in support of his case.  On behalf of opposite party, one Manju.R. authorized representative filed affidavit evidence.
6.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel representing the opposite party and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the hair patch fixed by the opposite party is of inferior quality and service provided by it amounts to deficiency in service?
2.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.             Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.2 :- In the partly affirmative as per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point Nos.1 and 2:- The complainant has submitted that the opposite party had given warranty of five years for the hair patch but it did not work even for three months.  The opposite party to extort money from consumers has supplied poor quality hair patch and it is nothing but their negligence in service.  The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the opposite party has not given any warranty or guarantee to the product.  The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the company is ready and willing to replace the product.
9.          The complainant in the affidavit evidence has reiterated the averments of complaint.  The complainant further stated that he had been experiencing serious mental trauma which had severely affected his life style which lead to depression and could not attend the job interview because the hair patch had come off due to negligent and poor service provided by the opposite party.  The complainant stated that he is not interested in stepping his foot in the company of opposite party and does not require more false assurance or poor services.  The complainant has produced CD and also provided its transcript i.e. conversation made with the opposite party.  The opposite party has not disputed the contents of CD and transcript.  The opposite party has admitted that hair patch did not work out to the complainant and they are ready to replace and give any kind of service worth Rs.70,000/-.  The opposite party in the version also admitted that they are ready to replace the product. 
10.       The admission given by the opposite party indicates that the hair fixing done to the complainant has not worked even for three months from the date of fixing the hair has hair was falling every day from the day of hair patch.  That apart the complainant was facing irritation like itching.  Though the opposite party has collected Rs.70,000/- from the complainant but it has failed to give reasonable service even for a year.  As such, the complainant did not come forward for the replacement of product though the opposite party is ready for it.  In view of the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for refund of the hair patch amount of Rs.70,000/-.  The complainant has sought total a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- including the cost of hair patch.  The complainant has suffered mentally for falling hair from the hair patch within three months from the date of hair fixing.  The complainant has not produced medical records to show that he has suffered physically like itching etc.,  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Kishan Ramesh is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  Otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment.  
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 5^th March, 2020)