E-Paper
Ludhiana salon penalised for failing to honour bridal make-up contract
Consumer commission directed the Ludhiana salon owner to refund ₹1 lakh to complainant and pay a compensation of ₹10,000
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has ordered a beauty salon owner to repay ₹1 lakh to a father-daughter duo for failing to refund bridal makeup charges. The salon had been unable to provide the scheduled service due to the imposition of lockdown after the breakout of Covid-19 pandemic.
The commission, led by Sanjeev Batra, further directed the make-up artist, Prerna Khullar, to pay a compensation of ₹10,000 to the complainants.
The amount of ₹1 lakh has to be refunded within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. If the payment is not made within this time frame, the complainants shall be entitled to interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until the date of actual payment.
Pritpal Singh Makkar and his daughter Gurjot Kaur of BRS Nagar had approached the commission on July 16, 2020 with a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the reimbursement of ₹1 lakh along with interest from the salon, as well as a compensation of ₹5 lakh. Pritpal had claimed that he experienced hardship and loss as a result of the inadequacy of service and the intentional refusal by the salon owner to refund the amount.
Pritpal had booked two bridal make-up appointments for his daughter Gurjot Kaur on April 5 and 6, 2020. He deposited ₹1 lakh of the total ₹1.8 lakh to a make-up artist in February 2020. However, due to the nationwide lockdown imposed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the planned bridal make-up sessions were unable to take place as promised at Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar.
The complainants said the bridal makeup could not be held due to the said reason and the make-up artist is liable to refund ₹1 lakh paid to her in advance as she has not rendered any services. Moreover, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Pritpal was facing financial struggles and had to pay off the pending bills.
Pritpal said he sent a legal notice to the salon calling upon them to refund the advance amount of ₹1 lakh, to which the respondent sent an evasive and frivolous reply on July 21, 2020. Her counsel, he said, refused to process the refund.
The complainants further submitted that they never cancelled the proposed bridal makeup sessions, but it is the opposite party who showed an inability to come to their house for the proposed bridal makeup sessions.
The commission observed that no one has been appearing on behalf of the opposite party since July 14, 2022. The legal notice was served, upon which the opposite party replied and denied the refund of the amount and rather demanded her balance of the agreed amount.
The commission ruled out that in the given circumstances, when the opposite party has admitted the receipt of payment of ₹1 lakh and non-performance of contract on her part though with some explanation, it would be just and appropriate to order the refund of ₹1 lakh to the complainants along with the composite cost of ₹10,000.
