In the present case[1] the NCDRC had directed the defendant to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rupees 2 Crores. The Following case has been appealed before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has set aside the judgement and directed the NCDRC to quantify the claims again.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the present appeal filed by the defendant, the defendant is aggrieved with the decision of the NCDRC, where in the NCDRC had asked the defendant/appellant to pay to the Complainant/ Respondent a compensation of Rupees 2 Crores. In the present case the respondent, who is a model by profession, visited the salon of the appellant “The ITC Hotel” to get the hair styling done as she had to appear before an interview panel in a week. The respondent requested for the services to be provided by Mr. Alem, from whom she had earlier also taken services but due to the unavailability of Mr. Alem another hair dresser, Ms Christine was assigned to her. Ms Christine had provided services to the respondent on previous occasion and the respondent did not find her services satisfactory. However this time the manager of the salon assured the respondent that Ms. Christine’s performance has improved overtime. The respondent gave specific instructions to the said hair dresser in the following terms: “long flicks/layers covering her face in the front and at the back and 4inch straight air trim from the bottom”. When the hair styling was complete, she noticed that the hair dresser Ms Christine had chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching to her shoulders which was quite contrary to the instructions given by her. When the respondent complaint about the same to the manager, he did not raise any bill. As per the respondent after this incident she could not lead a normal life as she did not look pretty anymore and her modelling was shattered due to the wrong haircut. The salon later offered the respondent services for extension of hair for the interview and also for free treatment to which she apparently agreed. The saloon arranged an external technical hair expert from MoeHair to extend the services. She was advised to repeat the treatment for 2-3 times. When the respondent reached the salon for the treatment that Mr. Vicky will do the treatment under the guidance of Mr. Alem. This time again the services provided were not satisfactory and conducted negligently. Excess Ammonia was used during the treatment which completely damaged her hair and scalp resulting into lot of irritation and burning in the scalp. According to the respondent, the hair dresser used his nails to scrub her scalp on the pretext that he was doing the exercise to open the hair cuticles. Whereas in effect it had caused abrasion in the scalp. However, when the cream was applied, it was laden with Ammonia resulting into severe burning sensation in the scalp. After this the respondent approached the NCDRC alleging that Excess Ammonia was used during the treatment which completely damaged her hair and scalp resulting into lot of irritation and burning in the scalp.
Thus the respondent approached to the NCDRC Alleging deficiency in service, seeking written apology from the management as also compensation of Rs.3 crores for harassment, humiliation, mental trauma, loss of career,loss of income and loss of future prospects.
The appellant, arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC, filed separate written objections and raised several objections: doubting the status of respondent being a consumer as the services rendered were free of charge, the claim of compensation was highly exorbitant, no documentary evidence had been adduced for such a huge claim, the complaint deserves to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Even on merits the appellant put up its defense. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the respondent before the NCDRC. Both the parties led evidence by way of affidavits. In addition, thereto some photographs, CCTV footages and also chats on social media and other material were also filed.
NCDRC Findings:
“The NCDRC recorded a finding that the length of the hair of the respondent had been shortened contrary to her instructions. It also recorded a finding that on account of faulty hair styling the looks of the respondent may have changed. The NCDRC also recorded a finding that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in providing the hair treatment to the respondent and also damage caused in the scalp. The NCDRC thereafter proceeded to deal with the quantification of the compensation. In this connection, it relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. Thereafter it refers to the importance of hair in the life of women and also the emotions and sentiments attached to it. The NCDRC further records that the respondent was a model modelling for hair products and because of her long hair she had been a model for VLCC and Pantene. On account of the deficiency in service and the damage caused to her hair styling, she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model. She was also working as Senior Management Professional and earning a decent income. The NCDRC further recorded that the respondent underwent severe mental breakdown and trauma due to the negligence in the services provided to her and as a result of which she also lost her job. She also suffered burning sensation and irritation in her scalp. For the above reasons, the NCDRC awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2 crores to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and, accordingly, allowed the complaint.”
Supreme Court:
“The question as to whether there was a deficiency in service or not would be a question of fact. The next question is that, on account of such deficiency in service, what would be an adequate compensation taking into consideration the various claims made by the respondent, either under different heads or a lumpsum amount. From a perusal of the impugned order of the NCDRC we do not find reference to or discussion on any material evidence to quantify the compensation. The court also required her to produce the material regarding her advertising and modelling assignments in the past or for which she had entered into a contract or agreement for the present and future with any of the brands to show her expected loss. The respondent utterly failed to demonstrate from the record filed before the NCDRC or before this Court regarding the above queries. In absence of aforesaid asked by the court, the court realized, what could be quantified was compensation under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. However, amount of Rs. 2 Crores would be extremely excessive and disproportionate. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the NCDRC fell in error by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation.
In view of the above, we are left with no option but to set aside the order of NCDRC awarding Rs.2 crores as compensation for loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma and pain and suffering. We remit the matter to the NCDRC to give an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs.3 crores. In case such evidence is led then adequate right of rebuttal be given to the appellant. The NCDRC may thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with the material that may be placed on record on the issue of quantification of compensation.”
[1] ITC LIMITED versus AASHNA ROY, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6391 OF 2021.
DUCTUS EDGE 