By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant along with her sister went to the beauty parlor of the Opposite Party for permanent hair smoothening on 20/01/2020 and the Opposite Party has done the permanent hair smoothening on the same day itself. The Opposite Party gave a warranty of 2 years and they assured that there shall be no side effects. The Opposite Party charged Rs.7,000/- from the Complainant as service charge and cost of products without giving bill. The Opposite Party told the Complainant that they had been using top quality products and high quality processing to avoid side effects. Then the next day, when she looked into her hair, it was seen that the Complainant's hair was broken, got burnt in some places and started the problem of hair loss. The Complainant's sister also experienced the same side effects. The Complainant immediately called the Opposite party and discussed the above matter. The Opposite Party asked the Complainant to wait for a few days and told that the hair problems would be cured immediately. The Complainant waited as advised, but the problems increased. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party directly, they tried to solve the problem by applying creams and oils, but the problems could not be solved. Then the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Sulthan Bathery Police Station. There, the Opposite Party assured that they would refund the money collected from the Complainant and had agreed to meet the expenses of the treatment, but the Opposite Party did not act as agreed. The Complainant further alleged that such problems occurred because of the Opposite Parties did not know how to do hair smoothening properly. The negligent act of the Opposite Party not only damaged the hair of the Complainant but also affected the beauty of the hair. Now the Complainant is under treatment to cure the problems of the hair. Hence, this Complaint.
3. After the admission of the Complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party denied that Complainant with her sister came to the firm of the Opposite Parties on 20-01-2020 for permanent hair smoothening as alleged in the Complaint and they stated that actually the Complainant who had approached the Opposite Party firm on 21-01-2020 and at that time their hairs were seemed to be done with some chemical treatments and so the Opposite Parties hesitated to do the same by making them counseling with regard to the procedure, its prior precautions and follow up actions of hair smoothening and the cost to be incurred for the treatment. At that time, the materials for the purpose of smoothening and the shampoo etc. were to be used after the treatment, were shown to them and also narrated to them. Subsequently they came to the firm on 21-01-2020 in the morning with the preparations for hair smoothening. After examining the hair of the Complainant and her sister, it was decided to perform hair smoothening on the Complainant and her sister. The Opposite Party issued the bill to the Complainant after doing the smoothening work on 21-01-2020. So it is not true that they were not issued bills for the smoothening treatment as alleged in the Complaint. The Complainants were asked to come on the 3rd day of smoothening for washing and shampooing, which is very important with regard to hair smoothening. But they never turned up accordingly. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the 2nd Opposite Party over phone from Calicut with regard to some queries and afterwards follow-up actions as contained in the printed instructions were supplied to her to which the 2nd Opposite Party has given proper guidance and replies. Thereafter on 27-02-2020, the Complainant contacted the 2nd Opposite Party through mobile and threatened that she will file a Complaint against the firm if the firm is not returning the amount obtained from her on the allegation that she was having hair falling and also will post live videos in the social media including face book against the firm. She openly threatened that if her demand is not complied, she would also cause her sister named Vismaya, the Complainant in C.C. 67/2020 to make a Complaint against the firm. Since it was a blackmailing, the 2nd Opposite Party gave the phone number of the proprietor of the firm named Joby George and thereafter, the Complainant in the above matter threatened the proprietor also over her mobile phone. Since there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties declined the illegal demand of the Complainant in this regard. Infuriated, the Complainant and her sister filed a complaint before the Bathery Police on 03-03-2020 stating false and fabricated allegations against the firm. For the threatening done by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party has also filed Complaint before the Bathery Police on 04-03-2020. The police summoned the Complainant and her sister and the Opposite Party and at that time the complaint and her sister demanded Rs. 18,000/- together as the refund of the treatment expenses. Since the same was denied by the Opposite Party, the police advised them to agitate the matter before the Consumer Court as the Complainant has stated that they would file a complaint before the Consumer Court. Hence the above Complaint was filed on the false allegations and averments. So the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.
4. On perusal of the Complaint and Version, Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite
Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
5. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are considered together.
6. The Complainant had adduced oral evidence. She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. On the side of the Opposite Party, Ext. B1 to B7 marked.
7. On perusal of the documents and evidences, it has been established that smoothening of the Complainant's hair was done by the Opposite Party’s firm. Regarding the date of hair smoothening, two different dates have been given in the complaint filed with the police and the complaint filed with the commission. Ext. B3 is the counterfoil of the bill in the opposite party's establishment. From perusal of Ext. B3 counterfoil, it is seen that the bill was issued to the Complainant and her sister on 21-01-2020. Apart from the allegation, the name of the person who issued is not there, there is no evidence from the Complainant that it is a fake document. Hence, it is clear that the Complainant and her sister did the hair smoothing on 21-01-2020. It is clear from the Complaint and statement that the Complainant has done hair smoothening for the first time. The Complainant has deposed that she is a make-up artist and a cosmetologist. Therefore, the Complainant cannot be considered as an ordinary woman who does not know anything about beauty products and its usages. In the Complaint submitted by the Complainant before the Commission, it is stated that her hair was broken the next day and she saw that it was burnt in some places and in the Complaint given to the police, she had stated that she had seen hair loss from the next day onwards. There is no evidence or record to show that what the Complainant did after smoothening her hair and whether she had followed the instructions of the Opposite Party. Being a first-timer to hair smoothening she was needed to ask the beautician for instructions. There is a possibility that it happened in this case as well. It is not credible to say that the Opposite Party did not give instructions to the Complainant regarding the further procedures to be done after hair smoothening. From the documents and evidence available here, it can be seen that some difficulties have occurred for the Complainant after smoothening her hair. But it cannot be said that it is because of the Opposite Party who treated the hair with poor quality beauty products. That is why the Opposite Party organization has been working for a long time and has been working in various places and there has been no Complaint against them so far. Everyone's skin and hair are different, so not everyone can get the same treatment. From the version of the Opposite Party, it is clear that the Opposite Party treated the hair of the Complainant and received payment for it. As an expert, the Opposite Party has the duty to recognize the skin and hair type of their customer and provide suitable treatment. It is not credible to say that the Opposite party did not give instructions to the Complainant regarding the further procedures to be done after hair smoothing.
8. According to the available records and deposition of the Complainant, it is clear that the Complainant sought treatment from the doctor only after she lodged a Complaint with the police. If the Complainant had any serious health problems as alleged in her Complaint, she would have definitely sought treatment from a doctor immediately. There is no explanation in the Complaint or in the testimony as to the reason for the delay in seeking treatment from the doctor. According to the Complainant, the incident related to the Complaint took place at the end of January 2020. After that, in March 2020, the Complainant filed a Complaint with the police for the first time. After that, she went to the doctor and sought treatment. Though she has produced the document to prove that she has consulted the doctor, the Complainant has not produced any documents to prove what were the medicines prescribed by the doctor, how long the medicines were taken by the Complainant, and whether the problem was solved or still continuing. So, there is no basis to claim Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation.
After going through the Complaint, documents, version, affidavit, we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to prove her case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of February 2022.
Date of filing:02.06.2020.
PRESIDENT(I/C):Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Vismaya. Beautician.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Joby George. Make up Artist.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of complaint receipt from Sulthan Bathery Police Station.
Dt:04.03.2020.
A2. Copy of Prescription. Dt:06.03.2020.
A3. Copy of Prescription.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Copy of Police complaint register.
B2. Copy of Police Complaint. Dt:04.03.2020.
B3(a). Copy of Bill issued by Lafemme Beauty Parlour. Dt:21.01.2020.
B3(b). Copy of Bill issued by Lafemme Beauty Parlour. Dt:21.01.2020.
B4. Copy of Instructions.
B5. Copy of complaint receipt from Sulthan Bathery Police Station.
Dt:04.03.2020.
B6(a). Copy of Certificate of Recognition.
B6(b). Copy of Certificate.
B6(c). Copy of Certificate. Dt:15.02.2003.
B6(d). Copy of Certificate of Attendance.
B6(e). Copy of Certificate. Dt:20.012004.
B6(f). Copy of Certificate.
B7(a). Photograph.
B7(b). Photograph.
B7(c). Photograph.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD
