The Chandigarh state commission upheld the order of the district commission and awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs 50,000 to the man. (AI Generated Image)The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order holding a hair-cutting salon liable for deficiency in service and directing it to pay Rs 50,000 to a man whose granddaughter was given a “defective haircut”.A bench comprising Presiding Member Padma Pandey and Member Rajesh K Arya was hearing the man’s complaint against Chandigarh-based Femina Plus, Luxe Salon, from where the granddaughter availed the haircut and hair treatment services on different dates — August 1, 2025, August 17, 2025, and October 17, 2025 — but alleged that her “long, beautiful hair” was “destroyed” owing to the salon’s “irresponsible attitude”.“In cases relating to personal grooming, cosmetic treatment and salon services, the overall facts, surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties and contemporaneous material are sufficient to determine whether the service rendered fell below the expected standard. The District Commission considered the complainant’s testimony, documentary material and the conduct of the appellant, including its failure to issue complete bills and arrived at findings of fact which cannot be lightly interfered with in appeal unless shown to be perverse,” the July 7 order noted.Also read | Shoes hold cultural value, says consumer court, awards Rs 21,000 to groom over undelivered pairAfter the three services failed to give the desired outcome and rather proved to be unsavoury experience for the granddaughter, the man alleged that the episode caused her “extreme distress, embarrassment, and loss of appearance”.“..instead of acknowledging its mistake, the opposite party behaved rudely and harassed them… the complainant paid Rs 22,000 to the Salon for hair treatment but despite repeated requests, the opposite party refused to issue total bill/invoice to the complainant and also refused to refund or corrective service to the complainant’s granddaughter, resulting into filing of a consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to the complainant for financial loss, mental harassment and further treatment of hair for good appearance,” it came on the state commission’s record.‘Loss of appearance’Before the district commission, the salon through advocates Mahir Sood, Arun William and Anirudh Bhaskar claimed that the man wanted to “defame” it, refusing to accept him as a “consumer” as the bills were issued in the name of one “Saakshi” and not in his name. The salon further alleged that the bill given with the complaint was of Rs 7,640 and not Rs 22,000, arguing that the granddaughter was an adult and the complaint had been filed by a “third person” without any basis.The lawyers submitted that the complaint did not allege if an “appearance loss” had been caused due to the treatment.Story continues below this adThe state commission, however, pointed out that the man had told the district commission that he had engaged the services of the salon and paid towards the treatment and haircut of his granddaughter. The salon was stated to have not produced any proof to show that the man did not make the payment or that his granddaughter had availed the services.The state commission further agreed with the district commission’s finding that the salon should have issued the bill in the man’s name as he had paid for the services and included the name of his granddaughter who actually utilised the services.Referring to the salon’s argument that “no expert evidence, medical opinion or photographs establishing deficiency in service”, the state commission said, “The Consumer Protection Act does not prescribe expert testimony as an indispensable condition in every complaint. Whether expert evidence is necessary depends upon the nature of the dispute.”Upholding the compensation, the state commission said that the case fell within the scope of the consumer commission as the salon had caused “mental agony” and “loss of appearance” due to deficiency in service.Story continues below this adAlso read | Wedding album, video undelivered, couple wins Rs 25,000 payout for ‘mental stress’SignificanceThe ruling establishes the obligation of companies to ensure proper services and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Chandigarh helpline:0172-270-0183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.