9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 178 - SC - Indian LawsFault in giving service of hair cut - saloon of the Hotel ITC Maurya - Consumer Protection - hair cut was not done according to the instructions of appellant - whether there was a deficiency in service or not would be a question of fact? - Correctness of compensation awarded by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the NCDRC - HELD THAT - 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. On account of such deficiency in service, what would be an adequate compensation taking into consideration the various claims made by the respondent, either under different heads or a lumpsum amount? - HELD THAT - 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 - 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. 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 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. 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 - the order of NCDRC awarding Rs.2 crores as compensation for loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma and pain and suffering is set aside - matter remitted to the NCDRC to give an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs.3 crores. In case such evidence is led then adequate right of rebuttal be given to the appellant. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Deficiency in service leading to faulty hair styling and damage caused during treatment. 2. Quantum of compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). 3. Adequacy of evidence presented to support the compensation claims. 4. Legal representation and assistance to the respondent. 5. Setting aside the NCDRC's compensation award and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Issue 1: Deficiency in service leading to faulty hair styling and damage caused during treatment: The respondent visited a salon for hair styling but received a haircut contrary to her instructions, resulting in significant emotional distress, career setbacks, and physical damage to her scalp during subsequent treatments. The NCDRC found negligence on the part of the salon in providing services and causing harm to the respondent's hair and scalp. The NCDRC awarded compensation of Rs.2 crores due to the deficient services provided. Issue 2: Quantum of compensation awarded by the NCDRC: The NCDRC justified the compensation by considering the impact of the faulty hair styling on the respondent's career, emotional well-being, and physical health. The NCDRC highlighted the importance of hair in a woman's life, especially in modeling and advertising industries. The compensation was intended to cover loss of income, mental trauma, pain and suffering, and the respondent's career prospects. However, the Supreme Court found the awarded amount of Rs.2 crores to be excessive and disproportionate, lacking substantial evidence to support such a high figure. Issue 3: Adequacy of evidence presented to support the compensation claims: The Supreme Court noted that the respondent failed to provide sufficient material to substantiate her compensation claims, such as details of her job, modeling assignments, or income. The lack of evidence regarding her existing job, emoluments, or future modeling prospects made it challenging to quantify the compensation accurately. The Court emphasized the need for material evidence to support claims for compensation under different heads. Issue 4: Legal representation and assistance to the respondent: The respondent appeared in person before the NCDRC and the Supreme Court, arguing her case without legal representation. Despite offers for legal aid, the respondent declined assistance, which may have impacted her ability to present her case effectively. The Court recognized the importance of proper legal assistance for individuals not from the legal field to substantiate their claims adequately. Issue 5: Setting aside the NCDRC's compensation award and remitting the matter for fresh consideration: Due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the compensation amount awarded by the NCDRC, the Supreme Court set aside the Rs.2 crores compensation and remitted the matter back to the NCDRC. The Court directed the respondent to produce material to support her claim of Rs.3 crores and allowed the NCDRC to reconsider the quantification of compensation based on the evidence presented. In conclusion, the Supreme Court acknowledged the deficiency in service and harm caused to the respondent but found the awarded compensation amount to be excessive without substantial evidence. The Court emphasized the need for material evidence to support compensation claims and highlighted the importance of legal representation for effective presentation of claims. The matter was remitted back to the NCDRC for fresh consideration based on the evidence that the respondent may provide to substantiate her compensation claims.
|
