Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan has partially allowed an appeal by a hotel operator, modifying the consumer commission’s direction that the ITC Maurya Hotel pay ₹2 crore to a model over an allegedly faulty haircut at the hotel’s salon. Setting aside the compensation assessment for a second time, the Court said the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission did not assess, on the material before it, how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 crore, and that a general discussion of loss without sufficient proof cannot justify such a high award. The compensation is now restricted to the amount already released to the respondent.

In the earlier round of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in service but set aside the quantum of compensation, remitting the matter to the Commission for fresh determination after granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. After remand, the respondent enhanced her claim to ₹5,20,00,000 and filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2023 along with photocopies of emails, certificates from modelling agencies, advertisements, pay slips, and a medical certificate. The appellant denied the documents, contended that they were photocopies lacking authenticity, and sought production of originals and permission to cross-examine the respondent. The Commission again awarded ₹2,00,00,000 with interest, leading to the present appeal.

Also Read: Universities Must Regulate Student Political Activity To Prevent Campus Violence: Kerala HC

The Court recorded that in the earlier round it had observed that ‘quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking’ . It noted that the respondent had produced only photocopies of documents and that “None of the authors of those documents was summoned nor did the respondent get a commission issued for examination of those witnesses.”

Referring to the magnitude of the claim, the Court 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. 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.”

Regarding the Commission’s reasoning, 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”

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Cardiologist’s Bail In Alleged Forced Angioplasty PMJAY Govt Funds Claim Case

The Court directed that “the present appeal is partially allowed. The impugned order passed by the Commission is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation, to which the respondent is entitled to, shall be restricted to the amount already released in her favor.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: M/S. Dua Associates, AOR Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. L.k. Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Raashi Beri, Adv.

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 135
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan