CPL-2 CASE BRIEFS:=

AASHNA ROY VS YOGESH DEVESHWAR & ORS [ DECIDED ON 21.09.2021 ] :

Facts of the case: aashna roy (complainant) went into the salon of ITC Maurya hotel, New Delhi for
her haircut for the purpose of an interview. She displayed the design images to the hairdresser and
intructed him to style her hair according to that. The hairdresser somehow failed to follow her
instructions and cut her hair to a length that her hair barely touched the shoulders. After the whole
episode of making complaints to the manager and CEO of the ITC hotels ltd, the complainant was
suggested to undergo a treatment by the salon of the ITC Maurya. As a result, the complainant’s hair
and scalp were completely damaged and burnt. After complaints to the management, she
approached the NCDRC with a written apology from ITC Hotels and Rs 3 crore as the compensation
for the loss of employment opportunities suffered by her due to the treatment and hence, the
mental trauma faced by her.

Arguments by the appellant: The Complainant who models for prestigious brands like Pantene and
VLCC for hair products alleged that due to the faulty services of the salon, she has lost various job
opportunities of modelling and acting, which is understandable that quality of hair would be the
most important aspect in a commercial for haircare products.

With loss of self-esteem, she was unable to continue with her work as a senior Management
Professional and lost her income.

The Complainant advanced her arguments by supporting it with the Medical Certificate that clearly
established that the scalp has been damaged due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.

Arguments by opposite party: the opposite party contended that the complainant does not fall
within the definition of consumer under Section 2(7) of COPRA,2019 as no payment was made by
her,

the Opposite Party No. 1 has contended that he is Non-Executive Chairman of the ITC Limited,
Opposite Party No. 2 and is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the Company

Complaint relates to an alleged deficiency in service pertaining to the cutting and treatment of hairs
of the Complainant at a Salon of a Hotel (ITC Maurya) of Opposite Party No. 2 and no allegation of
deficiency in service in the Complaint has been made against Opposite Party No. 1. Moreover, the
Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are distinct identity.

It was contended that both the haircut and the treatment were of high quality and they were given
to the complainant without any money consideration as a goodwill gesture due to complainant
being the recipient of their services in the past.

Exaggerated compensation on the part of complainant and complaint needs to be dismissed.

Complaint was filed under a malafide intention to malign its reputation and goodwill. ITC India is not
at fault.

The Complainant was offered a complimentary keratin hair treatment to straighten her hair with the
organic product of Moe Hair Pure by the Moe Hair staff.

Observations by the court: On plea of Mr. Yogesh Deveshwar (Opposite Party No.1) for deletion of
his name from array of parties, the Commission stated that prior to his death, he acted as a non-
executive Chairman of ITC hotel and was not involved in the daily operations of salons or the hotels,
thus, no liability falls in his hands.

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.

It cannot be believed that the Opposite Party No. 2 which is established for profit motive, would
provide free services with huge infrastructure, trained staff and management. As stated above, the
Complainant has made the payment of 1,770/- from the Card issued by the Master Card, however,
the said payment was declined.

Final Judgement: 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. She was also working as Senior
Management Professional and earning a decent income. She underwent severe mental breakdown
and trauma due to negligence of the Opposite Party No. 2 in cutting her hair and could not concrete
her job and finally she lost her job. 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.

Opposite Party No. 2 to pay a compensation of 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore) to the Complainant
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

GENERAL MOTORS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT:

Facts of the case: the complainant had a passion of driving and a dream to visit Leh, Jammu &
Kashmir and Nepal by driving by road. He came across an advertisement related to an SUV which
they intend to sell. The SUV was Chevrolet Forester. He got the vehicle for 14 lakhs and got
accessories worth Rs 1,91,295/- fitted along with insurance and registration. realised that the
vehicle was not fit for "off-road, no road and dirt road" driving as represented and had defects , Thus
he found that the owner's manual was contrary to the assurance in the brochure, internet. Claimed
danages and refund of price along with that of accessories were awarded by DC. The said order of
the District Forum was challenged by the Appellant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission"). The State Commission
held that the vehicle had no mechanical or manufacturing defect but the advertisement that car was
SUV amounted to "unfair trade practice" The Respondent preferred a revision petition against the
Order of the State Commission while the Appellant filed a cross revision petition.

Final Judgement : Neither there is any averment in the complaint about the suffering of punitive
damages by the other consumers nor the Appellant was aware that any such claim is to be met by it.
Normally, punitive damages are awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to the actual
loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specially pleaded. The Respondent complainant was satisfied
with the order of the District Forum and did not approach the State Commission. He only
approached the National Commission after the State Commission set aside the relief granted by the
District Forum. The National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was only concerned
about the correctness or otherwise of the order of the State Commission setting aside the relief
given by the District Forum and to pass such order as the State Commission ought to have passed.
However, the National Commission has gone much beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief
which was neither sought in the complaint nor before the State Commission. We are thus, of the
view that to this extent the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained.