The state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has upheld an order directing a Sector 9-based salon to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a consumer over an allegedly defective haircut and hair treatment, holding that expert evidence is not mandatory in every case involving salon services and that compensation under consumer law extends to mental agony and emotional suffering caused by deficient service.
Dismissing an appeal filed by Femina Plus, Luxe Salon, the commission affirmed the April 2 order of the district consumer disputes redressal commission-II, Chandigarh.
The complaint was filed by city resident MP Bharara, who alleged that he paid for the haircut and hair treatment of his granddaughter on three occasions in 2025. He claimed the salon gave her an uneven haircut contrary to instructions, causing embarrassment, distress and loss of appearance. He further alleged that despite receiving around ₹22,000 for the services, the salon failed to issue complete invoices and refused to provide a refund or corrective treatment.
The salon challenged the order, arguing that the complaint was not maintainable as the bills were issued in the granddaughter’s name and not in the complainant’s. It also disputed the alleged payment of ₹22,000, claiming it had received only ₹7,460, and contended that there was no expert evidence, medical opinion or photographs to establish deficiency in service.
Rejecting the appeal, the commission held that under the Consumer Protection Act, a person who hires or pays for services is a consumer, while the person receiving those services is its beneficiary. It observed that invoices issued in the beneficiary’s name alone could not determine who the consumer was.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the appeal, the commission held that under the Consumer Protection Act, a person who hires or pays for services is a consumer, while the person receiving those services is its beneficiary. It observed that invoices issued in the beneficiary’s name alone could not determine who the consumer was.
{{/usCountry}}The commission further held that once the complainant alleged that complete invoices had been withheld, the burden shifted to the salon to produce its complete billing records. Since the salon produced only partial invoices, the district commission was justified in drawing an adverse inference against it.
Observing that consumer disputes relating to personal grooming need not invariably be supported by expert testimony, the commission held that the surrounding circumstances, documentary material and the conduct of the parties were sufficient to determine deficiency in service. Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the commission’s order, it dismissed the appeal and affirmed ₹50,000 as compensation to be awarded to the complainant.