9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1487 - Commission - Indian LawsDeficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, i.e. Yogesh Deveshwar, Chairman, ITC Company Ltd. and ITC Ltd. in cutting and treatment of her hairs at the Salon of Hotel ITC Maurya and medical negligence in hair treatment - it is pleaded that the entire hairs of the Complainant were not chopped off and during the hairs treatment no harm was caused to her scalp with the excess ammonia and the hairs were cut as per request of the Complainant - Proper party/complainant - HELD THAT - There are substance in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that Mr. Sanjiv Puri is neither a proper nor necessary party and is not liable to the Complainant for the alleged claim in any manner whatsoever. Mr. Sanjiv Puri had taken the charge of Chairman and Managing Director of ITC Ltd.. Opposite Party NO. 2 on 13.05.2019 after the death of Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar on 11.05.2019. Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar was the nonexecutive Chairman of the Opposite Party No.2 and was not involved in its day to day operations or management. Moreover, the Complainant has not made any allegation of deficiency in service on his part and has failed to establish any personal involvement of him in the alleged deficiency. In the case of Amarjit Singh Vs. Gagandeep Singh Ors. - 2016 (12) TMI 1896 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI while dealing with the question Whether the Ex-Secretary or the Ex-President or other office bearers of any Cooperative Credit Society fall within the category of the Service Provider , a three Judges Bench of this Commission has held that that Ordinarily Ex-Secretary or the Ex-President or other office bearers of any Cooperative Credit Society shall not fall within the category of service providers in respect of any dealing of the depositors with such society. In the case in hand, since no evidence has been produced by the Complainant to prove that Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar was personally involved or was relating to any alleged deficiency of service, we are of the considered view that he has been improperly joined as a party and his name is liable to be struck out from the array of the parties. As such, the application seeking impleadment of Mr. Sanjiv Puri who has become Chairman of the Opposite Party No.2 after his death, does not have any merit and is rejected. What compensation the Complainant is entitled for? - HELD THAT - It is trite that the word Compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation of physical, mental or even emotional sufferings, insult or injury or loss. On the question of determination of compensation for the loss or injury suffered by a Consumer on account of deficiency in service, the following observations by a three Judge Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital Ors. 2000 (9) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT has held that 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. Keeping in mind the observations of the Hon ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments with respect to awarding compensation, we are of the considered view that the reasonable and just compensation is to be awarded to the Complainant. There is no doubt that the women are very cautious and careful with regard to their hair. They spend a handsome amount on keeping the hair in good condition. They are also emotionally attached with their hairs. The Complainant was a model for hair products because of her long hair. She has done modeling for VLCC and Pantene. But due to hair cutting against her instructions, by the Opposite Party No.2 she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model - This apart, the Opposite Party No.2 is also guilty of medical negligence in hair treatment. Her scalp was burnt and still there is allergy and itching due to fault of the staff of Opposite Party No.2. It would meet the end of justice in case the Complainant is granted compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- - Complaint allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in service by the hairdresser at the Salon of Hotel ITC Maurya. 2. Medical negligence in hair treatment. 3. Misbehavior and threat by the Salon and Hotel staff. 4. Pecuniary jurisdiction and whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. Compensation amount claimed by the complainant. 6. Impleadment of Mr. Sanjiv Puri as a party after the death of Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deficiency in Service by the Hairdresser: The complainant alleged that the hairdresser, Christine, chopped off her entire hair, leaving only 4 inches from the top, contrary to her specific instructions. This incident caused her significant distress, leading to a cessation of her normal activities. The Salon's management offered a free hair treatment to rectify the issue, which further damaged her hair and scalp. 2. Medical Negligence in Hair Treatment: The complainant experienced severe scalp damage during the hair treatment, including burning and irritation due to the use of excess ammonia. The treatment left her hair hard, rough, and unmanageable. Medical evidence from Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das supported the claim of scalp infection and hair damage due to harsh chemical treatment. 3. Misbehavior and Threat by the Salon and Hotel Staff: The complainant reported that the Salon and Hotel staff were abusive, rude, and disrespectful when she sought assistance. They threatened her with consequences for visiting ITC Maurya again. This behavior was deemed unacceptable and contributed to the complainant's mental trauma. 4. Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Whether the Complainant is a Consumer: The Opposite Parties argued that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the services were provided free of charge. However, the Commission found that the complainant was indeed a consumer, as she had attempted to pay for the services, and the Salon had generated an invoice for the hair cutting service. 5. Compensation Amount Claimed by the Complainant: The complainant sought compensation of ?3 crores for harassment, humiliation, and mental trauma. The Opposite Parties contended that the claim was exaggerated and without basis. The Commission, after considering the evidence and the impact on the complainant's life and career, awarded a compensation of ?2 crores. The Commission emphasized the need to serve justice and bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 6. Impleadment of Mr. Sanjiv Puri as a Party: The Commission rejected the application to implead Mr. Sanjiv Puri, who became Chairman of ITC Ltd. after the death of Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar. It was determined that Mr. Deveshwar, being a non-executive Chairman, was not involved in day-to-day operations and had no personal involvement in the alleged deficiency in service. Conclusion: The Commission found the Opposite Parties guilty of deficiency in service and medical negligence. The complainant was awarded ?2 crores in compensation for the distress and losses suffered. The application to implead Mr. Sanjiv Puri was dismissed, and the complainant was recognized as a consumer under the Act. The decision aimed to recompense the complainant and encourage better service standards in the future.
|
