In a significant ruling highlighting consumer rights and accountability of cosmetic and beauty service providers, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has held a city-based hair weaving and beauty centre guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a hair patch fixed for a woman ahead of her marriage allegedly came off during the wedding ceremony itself.
The Commission directed the salon to refund Rs 18,000 along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from March 25, 2023, besides paying composite compensation of Rs 30,000 to the complainant for mental agony and harassment.
The order was passed by the Bench comprising President Sanjeev Batra and Member Monika Bhagat while deciding a consumer complaint filed by Khushwant Kaur alias Jyoti, a resident of Dugri, Ludhiana, against M/s Indira Hair Weaving & Beauty Centre, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.
According to the complaint, the woman had approached the salon in March 2023 after seeing its advertisements on Google and social media platforms claiming to provide the “best” hair extension and hair patch services in the city. The complainant stated that she wanted a small hair patch for her marriage scheduled on March 26, 2023. However, the salon allegedly persuaded her to opt for a bigger hair patch or wig, assuring her that it would provide a better appearance and remain intact for three to four years.
The deal for the hair patch was finalised for Rs 18,000. The complainant alleged that the patch was fixed on her forehead on March 25, 2023, just a day before the wedding ceremony, with repeated assurances regarding its quality and durability.
However, according to the complaint, the patch allegedly came off during the marriage function itself, causing embarrassment and humiliation before relatives and guests. The woman further alleged that when she attempted to refix the patch the next day, it failed to stick and also caused irritation and damage to the skin on her forehead.
The complainant told the Commission that repeated attempts to contact the salon proved futile as calls allegedly went unanswered and the staff avoided meeting her despite several visits. She also alleged that she and her husband were made to wait for hours at the salon office without any resolution to the grievance.
The salon, on the other hand, contested the allegations and claimed that it had been engaged in the business since 1997 and possessed extensive experience in providing hair-related services. It submitted that the complainant had voluntarily selected the product after detailed consultations and demonstrations. The salon further contended that proper procedures were followed and the hair patch was fixed using medicated adhesive material which was safe for human skin.
The opposite party also argued that no scientific or medical evidence had been produced by the complainant to establish negligence or professional misconduct.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Commission observed that the salon had made tall claims regarding the quality and durability of the hair patch, yet the product failed on the very next day of application.
The Commission noted that the salon failed to produce invoices or documents explaining the exact procedure adopted, the quality of material used, or the brand and nature of the adhesive applied for fixing the hair patch. It further observed that no evidence had been placed on record to show whether any skin test was conducted before using the adhesive material.
The Bench observed that if superior quality material and proper professional standards had been maintained, the hair patch would not have dislodged immediately after application. The Commission further remarked that the complainant had been kept in the dark regarding the quality and nature of the materials used by the salon.
Holding the salon responsible for deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed compliance of the order within 30 days.
