The Supreme Court in this case did not explicitly rule that the consumer commission erred solely in awarding compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort without direct evidence of a substantial deficiency in service. Instead, the Court emphasized that the computation of compensation must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the actual loss or injury suffered by the consumer. The Court highlighted that compensation should not be arbitrary and must take into account relevant factors, including the nature of the injury or loss, and the conduct of the parties involved (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in cases where there is a delay or deficiency in service, the award of interest might suffice to compensate for the injury, and excessive or arbitrary compensation would be unjustified. The Court specifically set aside the higher compensation awarded, indicating that the amount must be justified by the circumstances and the actual damage caused, rather than awarded in a manner that is excessive or unreasoned (!) .

Thus, the Court's ruling underscores the importance of proportionality and fairness in awarding compensation, rather than endorsing awards based solely on the presence of injury or hardship without clear evidence or proper assessment of the extent of loss or injury (!) (!) .