The Nationwide Shopper Disputes Redressal Fee has awarded Rs 2 crore compensation to a girl for a mistaken haircut and remedy given to her by workers at a salon in Resort ITC Maurya in 2018, which left her “with little or nearly no hair”. The complainant was a mannequin for hair merchandise.
The order was handed by Justice RK Agrawal and Dr SM Kantikar, observing that there’s “little doubt that ladies are very cautious and cautious with regard to their hair” and that they “spend a good-looking quantity on retaining the hair in good situation”.
“They’re additionally emotionally hooked up to their hair. The complainant was a mannequin for hair merchandise due to her lengthy hair. She has finished modeling for VLCC and Pantene. However as a consequence of hair slicing towards her directions by the alternative Celebration No.2 (ITC Accommodations Ltd), she misplaced her anticipated assignments and suffered an enormous loss which fully modified her life-style and shattered her dream to be a prime mannequin,” the order learn.
The complainant was planning on persevering with along with her modeling assignments which have been primarily associated to hair merchandise and was additionally provided a film function.
On April 12, 2018, she visited the salon at Resort ITC Maurya for a haircut as she had an upcoming interview on the time. The girl requested for her common hair stylist who was not obtainable and was as a substitute supplied one other hairstylist on assurance from the workers.The complainant was “shocked and stunned to look at that regardless of her particular directions for lengthy flicks/layers protecting her face within the entrance and at again, and 4-inch straight hair trim from the underside”, the hairstylist had “chopped of her whole hair leaving solely 4-inch from the highest touching her shoulder”.
Salon workers provided her free hair remedy, which the complainant said was “doubtful and it resulted in harm of her hair”. “Her scalp was burnt with extreme burning sensation as a consequence of hair remedy and there was itching and flaking of the scalp. The chemical utilized in hair remedy has brought about everlasting harm to her scalp,” the fee recorded.
The fee additionally famous that she was additionally working as a senior administration skilled and incomes an honest revenue. “She underwent extreme psychological breakdown and trauma as a consequence of negligence of the Reverse Celebration No.2 in slicing her hair and couldn’t think about her job and at last misplaced her job. This aside, the Reverse Celebration No.2 can be responsible of medical negligence in hair remedy. Her scalp was burnt and nonetheless there may be allergy and itching as a consequence of fault of the workers of Reverse Celebration No. 2,” the order learn.
The girl said that she had “undergone extreme psychological breakdown and shallowness as she all the time had lengthy hair and due to fault on the a part of ITC Accommodations Ltd, she has been left with little or nearly no hair”.
“She stopped seeing herself within the mirror… and her social actions. She is a communication skilled and (is) required to be concerned in conferences and interactive classes. However she misplaced her self-confidence as a consequence of little hair. She additionally suffered lack of revenue as a consequence of psychological breakdown after the shoddy haircut and, thereafter, the torturous hair remedy. She left her job additionally… It’s submitted that she has gone by way of the ache and trauma for the final two years after this incident,” the fee recorded.
The respondents within the case had submitted that the “compensation claimed by the complainant is ex-facie exaggerated and with none foundation”.
“No foundation in anyway has been set out within the grievance on which the declare for compensation has been quantified at Rs 3 crore. The complainant has inflated the alleged declare intentionally in an effort to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Courtroom and the grievance is liable to be dismissed for need of pecuniary jurisdiction,” the lawyer for the respondent argued.