DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of  June, 2023.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 16/02/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N             

C.C. NO 103/2022

Between

COMPLAINANT

Ranjeetha G., Noel Touchston Apartment, Flat 1E , Crash Road, Vazhakala Kochi-682021, Ernakulam Dist.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Kapil , Luxe Brown Saloon 1^st  Floor, Mattamana G- Square, Seaport Airport Rd, Opposite Naipurnya Public School, Thrikkakara, Kakkanad, Kochi-682021

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1.       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that
complainant visited Luxe Brown Saloon on August 13, 2021, to undergo a hair treatment (Keratin). The total amount paid for the treatment, including the suggested shampoo/conditioner, was Rs. 14,450/-. However, the service provided by the salon was unsatisfactory and did not meet the complainant's expectations. Consequently, the complainant had to revisit the salon after a week, immediately after Onam, to have her hair re-serviced, as agreed upon by the stylist at Luxe Saloon.

During the second visit, the salon repeated the same treatment for a duration of 2 hours, claiming that the unsatisfactory result of the initial treatment was due to a mistake made by their stylist, Kevin, who had improperly heated the hair straightener on August 13. However, after a month, the complainant observed that the treatment did not meet the expected results, as Keratin treatments typically last for 5-6 months. In light of this, the complainant contacted the salon owner, Mr. Kapil, who suggested to undergo another treatment to achieve the desired effects of the Keratin treatment.

On October 16, 2021, the complainant underwent a pro-Keratin treatment at the salon, without any payment. However, after this treatment, the complainant's hair was severely damaged, appearing dry and frizzy. Additionally, a significant amount of hair was lost during the process, and the complainant's scalp became dry. Despite several attempts to contact Mr. Kapil, the owner of the salon, he did not respond to the complainant in a polite manner and exhibited arrogant behavior throughout his conversation, denying any responsibility on behalf of the salon for the damages caused.

The complainant's primary expectation from the Keratin treatment was to make her curly hair more manageable, glossy, and have a straight finish. However, the treatment at Luxe Saloon did not bring about any noticeable change, leaving the complainant disappointed. As a result, the complainant had to endure multiple visits to the salon, resulting in mental agony and trauma while attending work. The complainant's hair condition has worsened to the point where it is necessary to wear a scarf when stepping out of the house, causing significant distress and inconvenience as a working woman.

The complainant attempted to resolve the issue by sending a registered letter to the salon, explaining the problems faced as a result of their treatment. However, the salon refused to accept the registered letter, which was subsequently returned.

Considering the severity of the situation, the complainant seeks a refund of the paid amount of Rs. 14,450/-, along with compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony, and expenses incurred for multiple visits to the salon, amounting to a total compensation of Rs. 64,450/-.

2) . Notice

          Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.

3) . Evidence

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but submitted four documents before the commission.

1. Copy of the Invoice dated 14.08.23
2. Copy of the form for the opinion of the complainant regarding the service of the opposite party.
3. Copy of the Invoice dated 14.08.23.
4. Copy of the form for the opinion of the complainant regarding the service of the opposite party.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

iii)     If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

iv)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  The complainant had produced a copy of the Copies of the Invoices dated 13.08.23 and 14.08.23 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.

The complainant has filed the above case seeking compensation for the deficiency in service provided by the salon, which was unsatisfactory and did not meet the complainant's expectations.

When the commission took up the case on 20.06.2023, the complainant was absent and had no representation from her side. The case is posted for the evidence of the complainant. The commission has issued the notice to the complainant to appear before the commission and adduce evidence if any. The Notice was sent to the complainant on 20.05.23 and is seen served as per the proof of delivery of the Postal Department.  The complainant has not turned up and no evidence adduced to date. So many chances were given to the complainant to adduce evidence. No evidence was adduced by the complainant so far. The complainant is not interested to proceed further.

In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint was filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.” 

In the catena of decisions, it has been held that it is for the complainant to prove the negligence or deficiency in service of the complainant. Mere allegations of negligence will be of no help to the complainant.   Therefore, the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

We find the issue Nos. (ii) to (IV) are found not in favour of the complainant. we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the complainant. Hence the following orders are issued.

ORDER

Under the circumstances stated above the Commission does not find any merit in the contentions raised by the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th of June, 2023 .                                                                                              

                                                          Sd/-  

D.B.Binu, President                          

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                          V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                         Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                       

kp/

CC No. 103/2022

Order Date: 30/06/2023