Delhi

New Delhi

CC/11/2022

Sukriti Bhatnagar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

CC. No.11/2022                     

 

In the matter of:

 

Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar,

271, Bhatnagar House, Dhaka,

GTB Nagar, Delhi-110009

 

Presently residing at:-

88 Harbour Street,

Apt No. 6301, Toronto on MSJ 0053, Canada.                                                     ……Complainant

 

Versus

1. Geetanjali Salon Private Limited

         Through Mr. Sumit Israni

         Shop No. 41, Khan Market,

         Rabindra Nagar, New Delhi - 110003

 

2. Geetanjali Salon Products Private Limited

         Through Mr. Sumit Israni

          (Co-founded by Prem Israni and Neetu Israni)

           H-19, Ground Floor Green Park Extn.

           South Delhi-110016                                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Ms. Nain Adarsh, Member

 

                                                                                                             Date of Institution:- 01.02.2022                                                                                                                                                               Date of Order   : -      28.09.2022

 

ORDER

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINT UNDER OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (herein after referred to CP Act), by complainant against the Opposite parties (in short OP) alleging deficiency of service. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant is working in Accenture as Senior Analyst at Toronto, Canada since a couple of years and is enjoying a very high reputation as she is a highly qualified engineer.
2. It is further alleged that on 12.11.2021, complainant availed the services of the well renowned Opposite Party/Geetanjali Salon Private Limited for getting Brazilian Wax Upper-lip. Complainant also got her eyebrows job done. The complainant availed the services of Opposite Party because of their reputation in the market. However, the complainant was completely unaware of the fact that the Opposite Parties are using substandard/inferior quality products of Opposite Party No.2. The said services were availed by Complainant on 12.11.21. The complainant after one day i.e., during the intervening night of 13/14.11.2021 was to leave for Toronto, Canada to rejoin her duties.
3. It is also alleged that after receiving upper-lip waxing, Complainant started feeling burning sensation on her upper-lip which also turned red. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of one Ms. Priya, of Opposite Parties company who was sitting at the reception. As Complainant is used to these types of treatment, she thought that the burning sensation and the redness would subside with passage of time as told by Ms. Priya. It is also alleged that before getting the upper-lip done, the complainant was not even once asked by the Geetanjali staff/employee whether she had extra sensitive skin or was allergic to something. Moreover, no sort of warnings or precautionary messages were advised to her by Customer care. It is also alleged that at no point of time any form was given for disclosing any allergies that complainant might have and if any product used by OP/Geetanjali could have a reaction. Even no skin specialist was present for consultation. The eye brows were also not formed properly which further affected Complainant's looks. Since Complainant wasn't getting any satisfactory answers from Ms. Priya, Complainant came back home after making the requisite payment for the services availed.
4. It is further alleged that after reaching home, in about an hour, the condition of Complainant worsened inasmuch as, the burning sensation increased immensely and the burn marks became prominently visible on her upper-lip. Complainant did not get any relief from the burning sensation even after several hours and the marks on her face became prominent. Therefore, on the next day i.e., on 13.11.2021, Complainant contacted said Ms. Priya on her whatsapp number and also sent her photographs but the said Ms. Priya cut a sorry figure. The said whatsapp chats with complainant. Thereafter, on the same day, Complainant visited her family physician- Dr. Anil Gomber as she was experiencing discomfort and burning sensation on her upper-lip, who prescribed medicines to her and it was only after taking those medicines that she get some reprieve.
5. It is also alleged that as Complainant had to travel to Toronto, Canada on the intervening night of 13/14.11.2021, she took the entire journey in discomfort and with burning sensation on face covering the marks on her upper-lip which were causing discomfort and she, being a young girl, was not feeling comfortable with such condition on her face. It is also stated that the complainant had to face discomfort due to the inferior quality products of respondent used by OP No.1 on her face and also due to the deficiency in services by both the Opposite Parties.
6. It is also stated that since Complainant is a computer professional and during the Corona Pandemic, she does all her work from home through video conferencing, so on 15.11.2021, she joined her office through video conferencing with her above said lip condition, which was very embarrassing for her. The complainant was in total discomfort in attending conferences with her clients, seniors and co- workers. Everyone in the office and even the clients kept on enquiring and asking about the burnt condition of her upper-lip which further caused embarrassment to her.
7. It is also alleged that Complainant has to face mental agony, discomfort solely due to the negligent treatment/deficient services provided by Opposite Parties no. 1 and 2.
8. The Complainant is a young girl in her middle 20s and is of marriageable age and this treatment given by Opposite Parties have caused marks on her upper-lip and she would be requiring specialized treatment for the said purpose for a considerable time so that the scars could disappear.
9. The Complainant had to undergo this ordeal solely due to Opposite Parties negligence, deficiency in services and the spots/ scars would take time to heal and may be one or two scars may become permanent.
10.  It is further alleged that a legal notice was issued on 24.11.21. The same was served on Opposite Parties and a copy of the same was also sent on mail id of both the Opposite Parties, a false frivolous reply was given by both the Opposite Parties through counsel wherein false and frivolous action was threatened on complainant if complainant resorted to legal action. Till date, Opposite Parties have not complied with the demand made in the notice. The present consumer complaint has been filed seeking the following reliefs: -

1. “Direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation/damages to the Complainant amounting to Rs.55,00,000/- for the mental agony, depression, discomfort caused to complainant, and Rs.10,00,000 for medical treatment and Rs.10,00,000 for delay in complainant's marriage prospects, grand total of which comes to Rs.75,00,000/-.
2. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay complainant the Cost of litigation expenses.
3. pass any such other and further orders or directions, which this Commission may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case.”

11. Notice of the complaint was served on both OP`s pursuant to which they entered appearance and filed written statement and raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present complaint and contended that the complaint is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed in limine. It was contended that the complainant has miserably failed to show any deficiency in service by the OP`s.
12.  It was also alleged that it is verily believed that the complainant carefully planned the sequence of events and visited the doctor as well as chemist on 13.11.2021, while preserving all documents. However, the complainant did not consult any doctor or took any medicine after purportedly reaching Canada. It was also stated that the dispute raised by the complainant is outside the purview of the CP Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
13. It was alleged that the complainant visited the OP's salon voluntarily and of her own accord, having known the goodwill and reputation of the OP`s  in the market. It was denied that the OP used any sub-standard or inferior quality products.
14.  It was alleged that the procedure of applying wax on upper lip for hair removal, as provided to the Complainant, is a standard procedure followed by the OP for all its customers. The temperature of the said wax is also regulated as per standard procedures which are tried and tested by experts and used for all customers uniformly. It was denied that the services provided by the OP caused any burning sensation or redness of skin of the complainant. It was alleged the complainant ought to have informed the OP about any allergies or any extra sensitivity of her skin before availing the services from the OP`s. Since no such disclosure was made, the OP applied the standard high-quality products while providing the service to the complainant. The complainant was provided with expert services, with best of products which are uniformly used for all the customers by the OP, and no other customer of the OP had complained of such issues. The complainant is the only one who has raised the said issue, which are false or due to the extra sensitivity of her skin, which was not disclosed by her. It was also denied that the eyebrows of the Complainant were not formed properly which further affected her looks. It was alleged that the Complainant paid for the services availed without any protest, which shows that the aforesaid allegations made by the Complainant are false.
15.  It was admitted that the Complainant reached out to the OP's employee with a grievance about her condition. It was stated that it is the OP's policy that the customers must disclose any extra sensitivity or other issues before taking any services. However, no such factum of the Complainant's sensitive skin was disclosed. If the same was clearly disclosed, the OP would have declined to provide the Complainant the service of hair removal on upper lip, as per policy.
16.  It was denied that the Complainant took the entire journey to Toronto in discomfort and with burning sensation. It was further denied that the complainant was in total discomfort in attending conferences with her clients or that her clients kept on enquiring about her upper lip.  
17. It was also denied that the photographs of the complainant are true or authentic, or that any physical or mental damage has been suffered by complainant due to OP.
18.  It was alleged complainant served a false and frivolous notice to the OP, and the OP replied to the same. It was denied that any false or frivolous actions were threatened on complainant. It was denied that the OP is liable to compensate the complainant for any amount whatsoever or to pay costs.  It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
19.  Complainant thereafter filed rejoinder reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint and denying all the allegations made in the written statement.
20. Both parties filed their evidences by affidavits and written synopsis/written arguments.
21. We have heard the Ld. counsels for parties and perused the record.
22. The complainant in support of her contentions filed her evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint. She filed the receipts of payments made to OP Annexure A. Complainant had deposed that she had to visit her family physician Dr. Anil Gomber as she was experiencing discomfort who prescribed medicines to her prescription is Annexure B. Complainant filed the copy of receipt of the medicines Annexure C. Complainant also filed photographs Annexure–D to show the damage caused to her face. Complainant also filed copy of legal notice and its reply Annexures E and F and the chats with the OP Annexure G wherein OP stated “Mam I extremely sorry for this”
23. Opposite parties filed their evidence of its Authorized Signatory Sh. Anurag Sharma a reiterating therein the averments made in the written statement/reply.
24. It was contended by counsel for complainant that face is the most essential part of a human being. Especially for woman her facial looks are very important. Therefore, as it was burnt with wax, it caused immense mental agony to her. Complainant felt severe burning sensation due to treatment given by OP. It was also contended the substandard material used in the facial treatment has caused damage to the face of complainant and she had to go to her family physician for medical treatment. In his prescription Doctor stated that Sukriti Bhatnagar had upper lip burnt during wax process and was given medication. Complainant also deposed that the incident was brought to the notice of the staff of OP no.-1 but in vain. She further stated that she was having problem of itching, burning, sensation due to the faults of the salon staffs and she had undergone mental agony because of fault on part of the opposite party no.-1. Complainant also stated she is a working Accenture as Senior Analyst at Toronto and required to involve in meeting and interactive session. But she lost her self-confidence due to her face. She submitted that she was in discomfort in attending conferences with her clients, senior and co-workers. She stated has gone through the pain and trauma after this incident. The OP was liable to compensate her for loss of efficiency in work. The complainant placed reliance on whatsapp talk exchanged with the staff of the opposite party no.-1, regarding admission on their part (OP) about the alleged deficiency in service.
25.  With regard to the preliminary objection taken by the opposite parties that the complainant is not a “consumer defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it is to be noted that complainant availed the service of OP No.-1 which is working for profit. The complainant was asked by the OP No-1 to pay the charges/service availed. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant is a consumer and reject the contention of OP. The contention of OP that customer must disclose about exist sensitivity of service was not proved as no documents was filed in this regard.
26. A bare perusal of the whatsapp chat adduced by the complainant would reveal that the opposite party had admitted the fault on their part.
27. The relevant portion of the certificate issued by Dr. Anil Gomber MBBS to whom the complainant visited for treatment, is as under:-

“upper lip burn during wax process, injury over upper lip and surroundingarea Burn, Pain, Swelling, Redness.”

28. Now, the question for consideration is for what compensation the complainant is entitled for deficiency of services. The following observations by a three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Toch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668 are relevant and reproduced as under:

“while quantifying damages, consumer Forum are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of receompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

29. It is further stated that in view of the above judgment in the present case Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the hardship, mental agony, discomfort and depression caused to the Complainant because of Opposite Parties' negligence and deficiency in services. Opposite Parties are also liable to compensate the Complainant for her medical treatment and loss of her efficiency in work thereby causing loneliness for her. Complainant had to suffer because of Opposite Parties, despite being well settled in life, earning handsomely and even paying income tax in the highest slab.
30. For the sake of repetition it is stated that the women are very cautious and careful with regard to their face. They spend a handsome amount on keeping the face in good condition. They are also emotionally attached with their face. The complainant is working as Computer Professional and earning a decent income. She stated she underwent severe mental agony and trauma due to negligence of the opposite party no.-1 her face and could not concentrate on her job as her face was burnt due to fault of the staff of opposite party no.-1.
31. For the forgoing reason, we hold that the OP No.1 and OP No.2 are deficient in providing its services to the complainant and they also indulged in unfair trade practices. We accordingly hold Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 guilty of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. We hold OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally liable and award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the complainant to be paid to the complainant for deficiency in services, mental agony, causing harassment.  OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to make the payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipts of a copy of the order failing which OP-1 and OP-2 will be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the awarded amount.

A copy of this order be provided to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

Announced in open court on 28.09.2022.

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

 

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                        (ADARSH NAIN) 

               Member                                                                       Member