It was Shivani’s wedding day. All preparations were done. The beauty parlour was booked, and she was looking forward to the afternoon — she was called for her bridal makeup at 3.30 pm.

With her sister, Shivani reached the Cleopatra Day Spa Beauty and Slimming beauty parlour in Sector 8-C before the scheduled time, but to her shock she found it shut.

She called the manager of the parlour, but there was no response. She called some other numbers on her booking receipt, but they kept ringing. The sisters kept waiting outside the parlour for about an hour, frenetically calling one number after the other.

In the comfortable November afternoon, the sisters started sweating. The evening was drawing, and they didn’t know what to do.

In confusion they set out to look for some other parlour. But this proved to be a difficult task in the peak marriage season. Finally, they found one — Head Master Saloon in Sector 8-C — and Shivani heaved a sigh of relief.

After her marriage, Shivani approached the district consumer disputes redressal forum, which in a recent ruling directed the beauty parlour to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the sisters.

The forum has directed Richa Mahendru and Alisha of the Cleopatra Day Spa Beauty & Slimming to pay Rs 5,000 each to the sisters.

The forum has further directed the parlour to pay Rs 8,430 to Shivani, the charges she paid at the Head Master Saloon, and Rs 1,100 as costs of litigation.

The incident dates back to November 2, 2008, the day for which Shivani had booked the Cleopatra Day Spa Beauty and Slimming beauty parlour, the complaint had said.

She made the booking on July 28, 2008 and the charges were settled at Rs 9,500. Shivani paid Rs 2,000 initially and the rest was to be paid later.

A part of the make-up was done on October 20 and 29. At this point, another advance payment of Rs 3,000 was given for the make-up on the marriage day.

The complaint said Shivani was asked to come at the beauty parlour in Sector 44-C. But when she reached, she found the shutters downed.

In its reply, the parlour admitted that the complainant and her sister were called at the parlour at 3.30 pm, but denied that the shop was closed.

It was the marriage season and there was no question of the parlour being closed, the parlour said in its reply, adding that the complainant got her bridal makeup done at the Head Master Saloon “for reasons best known to her”.

However, when the forum asked the parlour to submit the lists of its employees at its various stores in the city, the parlour could not produce them.

“No such documents were produced, though they were very necessary. The withholding of the necessary documents requires an adverse inference to be drawn against the parlour. When a party is in possession of certain documents, it is necessary to produce the same and it should not wait for the orders of the court in that respect,” the forum said.

Ruling in favour of the sisters, the forum said, “When they charged a fee for rendering service, which was to be rendered on November 2 itself, it was necessary for them to be present at the parlour to attend the customers but they did not.”