AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 Mr ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 668] Thereafter it refers to the importance of hair in the life of women and also the emotions and sentiments attached to it. The NCDRC f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to substantiate her claim. The NCDRC discussed regarding the importance of hair in a woman's life and also 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 plac....