District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Hyderabad: While considering the instant complaint raising grievances related to botched hair treatments resulting in tangled hair; the Bench of Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna, (Member), found evidence of wilful negligence by the salon staff attending the complainant and held the 1st Opposite Party to be vicariously liable for the actions of the 2nd Opposite Party i.e., the salon and awarded a compensation of Rs 1 Lakh to the complainant and directed the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 25,000 towards costs.
Background:
The complainant is a practicing veterinary doctor and comes from a pious family of loyal and committed Sikhs. The complainant got acquainted with the 1st OP who had opened her own luxury hair salon and spa by name ‘Naoki’ in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. It was stated that the complainant had visited the salon for hair spa treatment and during her first visit itself, she faced difficulties with the service. However, upon assurance, the complainant explored the various hair treatments offered by the salon.
2nd OP offered the complainant 3 plus 1 hair spa package for Rs. 8,846 and was assured that they were using products belonging to highly luxurious Italian brand. However, due to the alleged lack of expertise by the salon staff and due to the hair care products used by them, the complainant’s hair became extremely tangled and all efforts to untangle her hair went in vain. As a result, the complainant had to cut her hair, which went against her religious tenets and beliefs as a Sikh and the affected her mentally, emotionally and professionally.
Per contra, the Opposite Parties argued that the amount for the package was refunded to the complainant and that the complainant attended the Davines Nounou Hair Spa demo conducted by 3rd Opposite Party others regarding their hair care products which were imported and distributed in India by Sustainable Beauty Pvt Ltd. It was further argued that the complainant booked the package after being impressed with the demo.
The Opposite Parties also contended that they did not attempt to cut the complainant’s hair, but it was her who got her hair cut and projected a defamatory campaign against Opposite Parties on social media.
3rd Opposite Party further contended that 1st and 2nd OPs deviated from the protocols laid down for their hair care products and misused the products and that the complainant did not send the damaged hair for chemical analysis to conclude that the entanglement of hair was due to their products.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts and contentions of the case, the Commission stated that the complainant falls within the ambit of consumer since she has hired or availed the services for her own benefit by paying consideration.
Analysing whether the Opposite Parties committed medical negligence and liable for deficiency in service, the DCDRC noted that the complainant’s hair got entangled immediately after the hair spa service. Furthermore, the DCDRC also noted that the 2nd OP did not deny and dispute the statements of the 3rd OP regarding-
-
misuse of products;
-
deviation from protocols;
-
one of the staff attending the complainant, not undergoing the training conducted by 3rd OP;
-
and non- use the same products that were used in the first session with the complainant
The Commission found that the documentary evidence and admission of entanglement of hair after the hair spa established wilful negligence and default of the service provider (2nd OP). Since a master is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their servants/ representatives/ agents; therefore, the DCDRC was of considered view that 1st OP was responsible for the acts and services of salon staff whether trained or not.
The Commission also pointed out that the complainant was not able to establish deficiency of service and negligence on the part of 3rd OP and in the absence of documentary evidence, liability cannot be fastened to them.
While determining the amount of compensation, the DCRDC noted that the complainant used her social media platform to tarnish the image of the OPs. While the complainant prayed for a compensation of Rs 2 Crores, the DCDRC deemed it fit that award compensation of Rs 1 Lakh.
[Dr. Jasleen Kaur v. Polsani Nikshitha Rao, C.C No. 346/2023, decided on 16-8-2024]
Order by Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, (President)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For complainant: Ranjan Matthew
For OPs: P. Srinath (OP 1 and 2) and Pragathi (OP 3)
