News Analysis India

Tag: Consumer court

  • Consumer court orders Guwahati cinema hall to pay her Rs 60,000 to woman bitten by rat 

    By PTI

    GUWAHATI: A cinema hall in Guwahati was asked by a consumer court to pay Rs 60,000 to a 50-year-old woman, who was bitten by a rat during a movie show.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kamrup directed Galleria Cinema in Bhangagarh to pay the woman Rs 40,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering, besides reimbursement of medical bill of Rs 2,282 and another Rs 5,000 towards covering the cost of proceedings.

    The woman had gone to the hall with her family for the 9 pm show of a movie on October 20, 2018.

    During the interval, she felt something had bitten her on the foot, and she immediately rushed out after starting to bleed, her lawyer Anita Verma told PTI on Friday.

    The cinema hall authorities failed to provide her with any first aid and none of its staff accompanied her to the hospital, she maintained.

    “At the hospital, she was kept under observation for two hours as the doctors were initially not sure what had bitten her. She was later treated for a rat bite,” Verma added.

    She moved the court, seeking compensation of Rs 6 lakh for mental agony, pain and suffering, besides the amount incurred towards her medical treatment and other expenses.

    Contesting the allegations, Galleria Cinema said that proper hygiene is maintained within its premise and that they had offered first aid to the woman, which she had refused.

    Galleria Cinema urged the court to reject the complaint, and sought a compensatory cost of Rs 15,000.

    After hearing the arguments, and taking into consideration the documents submitted by the woman and that no evidence could be produced in support of the claims made by the cinema hall, the court ordered the payment of the compensation on April 25.

    The cinema hall was negligent in maintaining hygiene for giving proper service to the viewers as required under the Cinematography Act and other obligations, the court said.

    The amount is to be paid within 45 days, failing which an interest of 12 per cent per annum will be levied from the date of judgement, it said.

    GUWAHATI: A cinema hall in Guwahati was asked by a consumer court to pay Rs 60,000 to a 50-year-old woman, who was bitten by a rat during a movie show.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kamrup directed Galleria Cinema in Bhangagarh to pay the woman Rs 40,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering, besides reimbursement of medical bill of Rs 2,282 and another Rs 5,000 towards covering the cost of proceedings.

    The woman had gone to the hall with her family for the 9 pm show of a movie on October 20, 2018.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    During the interval, she felt something had bitten her on the foot, and she immediately rushed out after starting to bleed, her lawyer Anita Verma told PTI on Friday.

    The cinema hall authorities failed to provide her with any first aid and none of its staff accompanied her to the hospital, she maintained.

    “At the hospital, she was kept under observation for two hours as the doctors were initially not sure what had bitten her. She was later treated for a rat bite,” Verma added.

    She moved the court, seeking compensation of Rs 6 lakh for mental agony, pain and suffering, besides the amount incurred towards her medical treatment and other expenses.

    Contesting the allegations, Galleria Cinema said that proper hygiene is maintained within its premise and that they had offered first aid to the woman, which she had refused.

    Galleria Cinema urged the court to reject the complaint, and sought a compensatory cost of Rs 15,000.

    After hearing the arguments, and taking into consideration the documents submitted by the woman and that no evidence could be produced in support of the claims made by the cinema hall, the court ordered the payment of the compensation on April 25.

    The cinema hall was negligent in maintaining hygiene for giving proper service to the viewers as required under the Cinematography Act and other obligations, the court said.

    The amount is to be paid within 45 days, failing which an interest of 12 per cent per annum will be levied from the date of judgement, it said.

  • Consumer court directs ITC Maurya to pay Rs 2 crore to woman for bad haircut

    By ANI

    NEW DELHI: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Delhi-based ITC Maurya, a luxury hotel chain to pay Rs 2 crore as compensation to a woman for a wrong haircut and treatment given to her by staff at a salon in Hotel ITC Maurya in 2018.

    “She lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model,” the court observed.

    A bench of President RK Agrawal and Member Dr SM Kantikar directed the hotel to pay a compensation of Rs 2 crores to the woman.

    “For the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed partly and we are of the considered view that it would meet the end of justice in case the Complainant is granted compensation of Rs 2,00,00,000,” the consumer court said.

    “There is no doubt that the women are very cautious and careful with regard to their hair. They spend a handsome amount on keeping the hair in good condition. They are also emotionally attached to their hair. The Complainant was a model for hair products because of her long hair. She has done modelling for VLCC and Pantene,” the NCDRC said.

    “But due to haircutting against her instructions, by the opposite party no.2 (hotel salon), she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model. She was also working as a senior management professional and earning a decent income. She underwent severe mental breakdown and trauma due to negligence of the opposite party no.2 in cutting her hair and could not concrete her job and finally, she lost her job, ” the NCDRC said.

    ALSO READ | Consumer alone can file complaint for service deficiency: Supreme Court

    According to the complaint, she was to appear before an interview panel. On April 12, 2018, a week before the interview, she visited the salon of a hotel for hairstyling to have a clean and groomed appearance before the interview panel. She asked for a hairdresser, who used to cut her hair on various visits to the salon.

    “But since the particular hairdresser was not available in the salon, another hairdresser was told to do the hairstyling of the complainant in her place. Though the complainant was not satisfied with her services in the past but on the assurance of the manager of the salon that she had improved her work, the Complainant agreed to have hairstyling from her. ”

    According to the complainant, she specifically instructed the hairdresser, for long flicks or layers covering her face in the front and at the back and 4-inch straight hair trim from the bottom. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant, the hairdresser, chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching her shoulders for which she was not instructed by her. She complained about the hairdresser to the manager of the salon.

    On April 13, 2018, as no action was taken against the hairdresser, the complainant called the general manager of the salon, to look into the matter, however, he misbehaved with her stating that she was free to take any action against the salon.

    Ultimately, the complainant approached the management and apprised them of the incident but in vain. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and seeking a written apology from the hotel management as well as compensation for harassment, humiliation, and mental trauma.

    The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party and they also submitted that the complainant has availed of service of cutting and hair treatment at the salon free of charge and hence, she does not come within the purview of the Act.

    Further, the compensation claimed by the complainant in the complaint is inflated, exaggerated and without any basis, the hotel said.

    The hotel said that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to malign its reputation and goodwill. 

  • Consumer alone can file complaint for service deficiency: Supreme Court

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: One cannot file a consumer complaint regarding deficiency in service on part of a hospital/doctor on behalf of a family member, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Dismissing an appeal filed by the brother-in-law of the aggrieved woman, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaian said one cannot file such complaint only on the ground that he/she is the ‘karta’ of a Hindu undivided family. “The concept of ‘Joint Hindu Family’ does not extend to the treatment of a pregnant sister-in-law,” the two-judge SC bench said.

    The petitioner had challenged in SC the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order upholding the dismissal of his complaint against a clinic alleging deficiency in service regarding the treatment given to his pregnant sister-in-law. He stated in the complaint that he availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law, being the ‘karta’ of a Hindu joint family. 

    Referring to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the bench noted that a complainant means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid/promised or partly paid/promised and includes a beneficiary of services.

    “The brother-in-law of a pregnant woman would not be a beneficiary of any services rendered by the respondent. There is no allegation that he has paid or promised any consideration for engaging the services. The only assertion in the complaint is that he is the ‘karta’ of a Joint Hindu Family, therefore, he is entitled to file a complaint on account of the alleged deficiency of service,” the court noted while dismissing the appeal

    Appellant was not the aggrieved

    “The appellant herein is the ‘karta’ of a Joint Hindu Family. He cannot be said to be availing the services of a medical pract-itioner in respect of the pregnancy of his sister-in-law,” the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasub-ramaian said.