The Supreme Court set aside a ₹2 crore compensation awarded in a consumer dispute relating to an alleged deficiency in a salon haircut service, finding that the material on record did not justify such a high monetary award, holding that damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or the complainant’s assertions, but must be founded on trustworthy evidence establishing actual loss. The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising out of a consumer dispute in which compensation had been awarded against a luxury hotel chain for an alleged service deficiency related to a haircut. While the finding of service deficiency had attained finality in earlier proceedings, the dispute before the Court concerned the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, while examining the evidentiary basis for the compensation, observed: “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.” Background The complainant approached the beauty salon at the appellant hotel, ITC Maurya, alleging dissatisfaction with a haircut and claiming that the incident caused emotional distress and professional setbacks. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially awarded ₹2 crore as compensation for deficiency in service and alleged medical negligence.
In an earlier round of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency but remitted the matter to the Commission to reassess compensation, noting the absence of supporting material. Upon remand, the complainant enhanced the compensation claim and produced photocopies of documents purportedly relating to modelling assignments and medical certificates to establish loss and trauma. The Commission again awarded ₹2 crore compensation, prompting the present appeal. Court’s Observations The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidentiary material produced after remand and found it insufficient to support the quantum awarded. The Court noted that the complainant relied primarily on photocopies of certificates relating to modelling assignments and medical conditions, many of which were unclear, incomplete, or unsupported by corroborative records.
The Court emphasised that while consumer fora are meant to adopt a liberal and consumer-friendly approach, such latitude cannot substitute the requirement of credible proof when awarding substantial damages. It was observed that compensation claims of this magnitude require demonstrable proof of loss, particularly where professional or financial injury is alleged. Highlighting evidentiary deficiencies, the Court noted that the documents did not establish actual income, contractual assignments, or financial loss attributable to the incident. The Court rejected the Commission’s reasoning that photocopies could suffice due to the complainant’s alleged trauma, observing that even relaxed procedural standards cannot justify awarding large sums absent reliable proof. Also Read - Notarised Photocopy of Power of Attorney Not Valid Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds HC’s Rejection of Alienation Claim
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/itc-limited-v-aashna-roy-2026-insc-135-dispute-redressal-commission-ncdrc-1606847