Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6391 OF 2021
ITC LIMITED …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AASHNA ROY …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH,J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 assails the correctness of the order
st
dated 21 September, 2021 passed by the National
1
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 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
2
Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. 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