₹2 Crore Compensation For Faulty Haircut Unjustified : Supreme Court Asks ITC Maurya To Pay 25 Lakhs To Model

The Supreme Court has again set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.

It may be recalled that in 2023, the Supreme Court had set aside the compensation awarded by the NCDRC, holding that the respondent–model had failed to place material on record to substantiate her claim, and had remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh determination of the quantum of compensation.

However, in the impugned order passed thereafter, the NCDRC again directed the appellant, ITC Maurya, to pay ₹2 Crores as compensation solely relying on photocopies of documents produced by the respondent to support a claim exceeding ₹5 crores.

Setting aside the impugned order, a judgment authored by Justice Bindal allowed the ITC Maurya's plea, noting that the compensation demand of over ₹5 crores can't be established merely on producing a photocopy of the documents.

“The damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant. To make out a case for award of damages, especially when the claim is to the tune of crores of rupees, some trustworthy and reliable evidence has to be led. It is not a case where the Commission was considering a small issue where compensation could be awarded by applying a thumb rule. Claim of compensation was for crores of rupees, for which some loss suffered by the respondent because of deficiency in service was required to be established. This could not be established by merely producing photocopies of the documents.”, the court observed.

“In our view, on the basis of photocopies of the documents placed on record by the respondent, the Commission has committed an error in awarding huge amount of compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/-, which in our view cannot be justified. The observation made by the Commission that because of the trauma suffered by the respondent, she may not have maintained the originals of the documents produced before the Commission, hence, reliance could be placed on mere photocopies, cannot be a justification for awarding such a huge compensation. Even if the photocopies were to be produced, there are other ways and means to justify the claim made on that basis”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, whereby the amount of compensation was decided to be Rs. 25 Lakhs which already deposited by the Appellant with the NCDRC.

Headnote

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Quantum of Compensation – Evidence and Proof – Challenge to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order awarding ₹2,00,00,000/- compensation for a faulty haircut – Held that while the finding of deficiency in service was upheld in the first round of litigation, the quantum of compensation must be based on "material evidence and not on the mere asking" - Compensation to the tune of crores cannot be awarded based on unauthenticated photocopies of documents, especially when their authenticity is denied by the opposite party.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 13 and 22 – Procedure and Evidence – Applicability of Indian Evidence Act – Held that the Indian Evidence Act (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) is not strictly applicable to Consumer Forums, the Principles of Natural Justice must be followed - If a party seeks to cross-examine a witness or expert whose affidavit is on record, the Commission should evolve a procedure to permit such cross-examination—via written questions, video conferencing, or a court-appointed Commission to ensure fair play.

Admissibility of Documents – Mode of Proof – Distinction between an objection to the "admissibility" of a document and its "mode of proof" - A prompt objection to the mode of proof (e.g., producing photocopies instead of originals) is necessary to allow the party tendering the evidence an opportunity to cure the defect – Noted that in this case, the appellant categorically denied the photocopies and filed applications for the production of originals and cross-examination, which the Commission failed to address - The Supreme Court found the award of ₹2,00,00,000/- unjustified as the respondent failed to establish actual financial loss or a causal link between the haircut and lost career opportunities - The appeal was partially allowed, restricting the compensation to the ₹25,00,000/- already released to the respondent. [Relied on Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others (2009) 9 SCC 221; Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another (2003) 8 SCC 75; Dr. J.J. Merchant and others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635; Paras 17-22]

Cause Title: ITC LIMITED VERSUS AASHNA ROY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : M/S. Dua Associates, AOR Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. L.k. Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Raashi Beri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Caveator-in-person, AOR