Itc Limited vs Aashna Roy

ITC LIMITED …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

AASHNA ROY …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH,J.

1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 assails the correctness of the order

dated 21st September, 2021 passed by the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 in Consumer

Complaint No.1619/18 between Aashna Roy versus Yogesh

Deveshwar and another. The NCDRC by the said order

allowed the complaint filed by the sole respondent herein and

awarded compensation of Rs.2 crores to be paid by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.02.07 18:59:44 IST Reason:

1 ‘the NCDRC’

1 Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC i.e. the present

appellant.

2. The background giving rise to the filing of the complaint

by the respondent is briefly stated herein:

2.1 The respondent visited the saloon of the Hotel ITC

Maurya, New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for hair styling so

that she would have a clean and groomed appearance

before the interview panel where she was to appear

after a week. She requested for one Ms Alem the hair

dresser who regularly used to cut her hairs on several

previous visits to the saloon. As Ms Alem was not

available, another hair dresser namely Ms Christine

was assigned to do the hair styling of the respondent.

The respondent, despite her not being satisfied with

the services rendered by Ms Christine on previous

occasions, accepted her services on the assurance of

the Manager of the saloon that Ms Christine has

shown great improvement in her performance over a

period of time.

2 2.2 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 4-

inch straight hair trim from the bottom”. The

respondent was instructed to keep her head down

and as she wears high powered spectacles (removed

at the time of hairstyling), she could not clearly see

herself in the mirror as to what the hair dresser was

actually doing. According to the respondent, the

instructions given were simple and would not take

much time but when the hair dresser took more than

an hour to do the hair styling, she questioned the hair

dresser as to why she was taking so much time. She

received an answer from the hair dresser that she was

giving her “the London Haircut”.

2.3 When the hair styling was complete, to her utter

surprise, 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

3 instructions given by her. She immediately

complained to the Manager of the saloon Mr Gurpreet

Acharya. As she had made a complaint, the Manager

did not raise any bill. However, she left the saloon

completely annoyed and frustrated.

2.4 According to the respondent, as a result of the faulty

haircut, the respondent could not continue to lead her

normal busy life as she no longer looked pretty; she

had to face great humiliation and embarrassment; her

career in the world of modelling was completely

shattered; she went into a state of depression.

2.5 In connection with the fiasco which took place on

12.04.2018, the respondent made a complaint to the

General Manager of the saloon Mr Zubin Songadwala

to look into the matter and take appropriate action

against the hair dresser. Mr Songadwala, instead of

being courteous and apologetic to the respondent,

was rude and said that she was free to take any action

against the saloon. Thereafter, the respondent also

called upon the Chief Executive Officer of ITC Limited

4 Mr Dipak Haksar and apprised him of the entire

episode. It is also the case of the respondent that her

hair was being sold by the saloon.

2.6 The saloon 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 (an international brand) to extend the

services. She was advised to repeat the treatment for

2-3 times.

2.7 The respondent again went for hair treatment on

3.5.2018. She was informed that the in-house hair

dresser Mr Vicky would do the treatment under the

supervision of Ms Alem. The respondent was given to

understand that Mr Vicky was a trained hair dresser

and very good in his work. Once again it turns out to

be a fiasco for the respondent. 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,

5 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.

2.8 She again complained about the damage caused

whereafter a spray was used which gave her

temporary relief. Thereafter, her hair had become

hard and rough and the respondent could not even

run her fingers through it. The discontentment and

the annoyance expressed by the respondent was not

taken well. The staff was abusive, rude and

disrespectful. She was also threatened to face

consequences on visit to ITC, Maurya. However, the

complaints made by the respondent to the Manager

of ITC Group of Hotels were an exercise in futility.

3. Left with no option, the respondent filed a complaint

before the NCDRC alleging deficiency in service, seeking

written apology from the management as also compensation

6 of Rs.3 crores for harassment, humiliation, mental trauma,

loss of career, loss of income and loss of future prospects.

4. The NCDRC issued notices whereupon the Opposite

Party No.1 before the NCDRC, namely Mr Yogesh Deveshwar

took a defence that he was a non-executive Chairman of the

ITC Limited and was not involved in the day-to-day

operations of the company, as such he has been wrongly

impleaded and the complaint deserves to be dismissed for

misjoinder of parties. He also took several other objections

on merits.

5. 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 defence. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the

7 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.

6. It would be worthwhile to record that before the NCDRC

as also before this Court, the respondent appeared in person

and argued the matter herself.

7. The NCDRC directed for deletion of the name of Mr

Yogesh Deveshwar and further rejected the application by the

respondent to implead Mr Sanjeev Puri, who is said to have

taken over as Chairman of the ITC Limited after Mr

Deveshwar on the ground that no deficiency in service was

alleged against the said individual.

8. 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

8 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.2 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 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

2 (2000) 7 SCC 668

9 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.

9. We have heard Mr K.V.Viswanathan and Mr Debal

Kumar Banerji, learned senior counsel for the appellant and

Ms Aashna Roy, the respondent-in-person and perused the

material on record.

10. The question as to whether there was a deficiency in

service or not would be a question of fact. The NCDRC, based

upon the evidence led which included the affidavits,

photographs, CCTV footage, whatsapp chats and other

material on record, came to the conclusion that there was

deficiency in service. We are not inclined to interfere with the

said finding regarding deficiency in service as the same is

based upon appreciation of evidence and thus would be a

pure question of fact.

11. The next question is that, on account of such deficiency

in service, what would be an adequate compensation taking

10 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.

12. In this respect, this Court repeatedly requested the

respondent, who was appearing in person, to refer to the

material which she had placed before the NCDRC with

respect to her present job at the time when she undertook

the hair styling on 12.04.2018. This 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.

13. In the absence of any material with regard to her existing

job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or

future assignments in modeling which the respondent was

11 likely to get or even the interview letter for which the

respondent alleges she had gone to the saloon to make herself

presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the

compensation under these heads. 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.

14. The respondent was given an offer to engage a counsel

which she denied. This Court thereafter offered her free legal

aid also to be provided by the SCLSC which also she denied

to accept. In the absence of any legal assistance, the

respondent not being a person from the field of law may not

be able to comprehend as to how and in what manner she

needs to substantiate her claim. The NCDRC discussed

regarding the importance of hair in a woman’s life and also

12 that it could be an asset for building a career in modelling

and advertising industry but then quantification of

compensation has to be based upon material evidence and

not on the mere asking.

15. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the

respondent if she has material to substantiate her claim may

be given an opportunity to produce the same. Once

deficiency in service is proved then the respondent is entitled

to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible

under law. Question is on what basis and how much. Let this

quantification be left to the wisdom of the NCDRC based

upon material if any that may be placed before it by the

respondent.

16. 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

13 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. The

appeal is allowed with the aforesaid directions.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

19. This Court while issuing notice vide order dated

29.10.2021 had directed the appellant to deposit an amount

of Rs. 25 lakhs, which has since been deposited with the

Registry and is placed in fixed deposit. The above amount

along with accrued interest be transmitted to NCDRC within

2 weeks. The NCDRC while deciding the matter afresh may

pass appropriate orders with respect to the said amount.

……………………………………J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

…………………………………..J. (VIKRAM NATH) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 07, 2023

14