The Supreme Court has partially allowed the appeal filed by ITC Limited, setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order that awarded ₹2 Crores as compensation to a customer for a faulty haircut. The Apex Court held that damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or “whims and fancies” of the complainant, and huge claims require trustworthy and reliable evidence, not merely photocopies of documents.
The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan modified the impugned order, restricting the compensation to the amount already released in favor of the respondent (approximately ₹25 Lakhs, as per earlier proceedings), ruling that the respondent failed to justify the claim for ₹2 Crores or the enhanced claim of ₹5.20 Crores.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an incident on April 12, 2018, when the respondent, Aashna Roy, visited the beauty salon at ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, for a haircut. Dissatisfied with the service, she filed a complaint before the NCDRC. On September 21, 2021, the Commission found the hotel guilty of deficiency in service and medical negligence, awarding ₹2 Crores as compensation.
ITC Limited challenged this order in the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 6391 of 2021). By a judgment dated February 7, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in service but set aside the quantum of compensation. The Court observed that there was no material on record to justify the claim and remitted the matter back to the NCDRC to determine the quantum of compensation afresh, allowing parties to lead evidence.
During the remand proceedings, the respondent enhanced her claim to ₹5.20 Crores and produced photocopies of various documents, including emails regarding job offers and modeling assignments. By the impugned order dated April 25, 2023, the NCDRC again awarded ₹2 Crores with 9% interest, relying on the documents produced. ITC Limited approached the Supreme Court again challenging this order.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant (ITC Limited) argued that the NCDRC’s order violated the principles of natural justice. The counsel submitted that the respondent only produced photocopies of documents, which were categorically denied by the appellant. The appellant filed applications seeking the production of original documents and permission to cross-examine the respondent, but these were ignored by the Commission.
The appellant contended that the claim was “totally imaginary.” Pointing to the pay slips produced by the respondent, the counsel argued that she remained in service with ‘AMC Marketing Research Associates’ at the same pay package before and after the haircut. Regarding alleged modeling offers, the appellant argued the documents were undated, on plain paper, or legally inadmissible photocopies without authentication.
The Respondent (Aashna Roy), appearing in person, argued that she is a management post-graduate and her career was derailed by the faulty haircut, which led to a loss of confidence. She contended that the length and style of a woman’s hair are relevant for managerial jobs and modeling assignments. She asserted that the appellant failed to summon the employers to challenge the credibility of her documents and that consumer courts should not be bogged down by technicalities.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the evidence produced by the respondent after the remand. The Bench noted that while the Consumer Protection Act does not strictly enforce the Indian Evidence Act, the Commission is bound by the principles of natural justice.
Referring to the judgments in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, the Court reiterated that while evidence can be taken on affidavits, if cross-examination is sought, the Commission must evolve a procedure to permit it.
On the Admissibility of Evidence: The Court observed that the respondent produced only photocopies of documents. The authors of the letters (regarding job offers and medical conditions) were not examined, nor was the respondent cross-examined despite the appellant’s request.
“Despite denial of all the documents filed by the respondent in evidence to claim damages, the respondent did not take any steps to prove the authenticity thereof… The manner in which the photocopies thereof are sought were produced do not inspire confidence specially where the claim of damages is made for crores of rupees.”
On the Merits of the Claim: The Court analyzed the specific documents:
- Pay Slips: The Court noted that pay slips for April and May 2018 indicated the respondent remained employed at the same salary, contradicting her claim of income loss.
- Job/Modeling Offers: The Court found the emails and certificates regarding modeling assignments to be vague, undated, or on plain paper, with no proof of payment or acceptance.
- Medical Certificate: The Court observed that the medical certificate claiming trauma and depression was from a doctor whose qualifications were not mentioned and was not produced in the first round of litigation.
The Bench held:
“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.”
The Court concluded that the NCDRC committed an error in awarding ₹2 Crores based on mere photocopies, stating that general discussion in the judgment cannot justify such a huge quantum.
Decision
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It noted that in the earlier round of litigation, the appellant had deposited ₹25 Lakhs, which was directed to be released to the respondent.
The Court held:
“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.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
