Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, J
Manmohan, J.
ITC Limited – Appellant
Versus
Aashna Roy – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2026
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Beauty Parlour – Deficiency in service – Sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- awarded by NCDRC as compensation to respondent for dissatisfactory haircut – Damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of complainant – To make out a case for award of damages, especially when claim is to the tune of crores of rupees, some trustworthy and reliable evidence has to be led – It is not a case where 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 respondent because of deficiency in service was required to be established – This could not be established by merely producing photocopies of documents – On the basis of photocopies of documents placed on record by respondent, Commission has committed error in awarding huge amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, which cannot be justified – Impugned order passed by Commission modified to the extent that amount of compensation shall be restricted to amount of Rs. Rs.25,00,000/- already released in her favour. [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21] (Paras 22, 23, 23.1 and 24)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13 – Consumer Complaint – Adjudication of – Provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) are not strictly applicable for proceedings under 1986 Act – However, National Commission is bound to comply with Principles of Natural Justice, save and except as laid down in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of 1986 Act. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in present appeal is to the order [Dated 25.04.2023] passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint filed by respondent whereby compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was awarded to her on account of deficiency in service.
Findings of Court:
Even if the photocopies were to be produced, there are other ways and means to justify the claim made on that basis. Even if the Code of Civil Procedure may not be strictly applicable, Commission has not assessed as to how the respondent suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. General discussion in the impugned judgment may not justify the same.
Result : Appeal partially allowed.
Key Points: - Compensation for deficiency in service must be based on credible evidence, not presumptions or whims, especially when claims are in crores of rupees (!) (!) . - Photocopies of documents without originals or authentic certification are insufficient to justify substantial compensation awards (!) (!) . - The National Commission is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act strictly, but must follow principles of natural justice (!) (!) . - After remand, the respondent must produce material evidence to substantiate the claim, and the appellant must be given opportunity to rebut (!) (!) . - The Commission must assess quantum of compensation based on material evidence placed on record, not on general discussion or conjecture (!) (!) . - The appellant is entitled to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the authenticity of documents produced by the respondent (!) (!) . - The award of compensation must be justified with reference to loss suffered, and not merely on the basis of submitted photocopies (!) (!) . - Even if photocopies are accepted, their authenticity, date, and connection to the incident must be established (!) (!) . - The earlier deposit of Rs.25,00,000 by the appellant was directed to be transmitted to the Commission and later released to the respondent (!) . - The impugned order is modified to restrict compensation to the amount already released in favor of the respondent (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order, [Dated 25.04.2023] passed by the Commission, [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission] in the Complaint, [Consumer Case No.1619 of 2018] filed by the respondent whereby compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was awarded to her on account of deficiency in service.
2. Briefly, the facts available on record are that the respondent visited the beauty salon in the appellant’s ITC Maurya Hotel at New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for her haircut. Being dissatisfied with the service rendered, the respondent filed a complaint before the Commission in July 2018. Vide order dated 21.09.2021, the Commission found the appellant guilty of the deficiency in service and medical negligence. A sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the respondent.
2.1 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred appea, [Civil Appeal No.6391 of 2021] before this Court. Vide judgment dated 07.02.2023, the aforesaid appeal was disposed of by this Court, while not interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Commission regarding deficiency in service. However, the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Commission so far as quantum of computation was concerned. It was for the reason that there was no material placed on record by the respondent to justify her claim. In case any evidence was to be produced on record by the respondent before Commission, the appellant was entitled to rebut the same. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Court was directed to be transmitted to the Commission. The appellant filed review petition5[Review Petition Diary No.9795 of 2023 in C.A. No.6391 of 2021] against the aforesaid order. The same was dismissed by this Court on 11.07.2023. To complete the narration of fact recorded in the earlier round of litigation, it needs to be mentioned that the Curative Petition, [Curative Petition (Civil) No.392/2023] filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 30.01.2024.
2.2 After remand, the respondent enhanced her claim from Rs.2,00,00,000/- to Rs.5,20,00,000/- and produced certain documents on record before the Commission to substantiate her claim. The Commission, after consideration of the material produced on record by the parties, again awarded, [Vide Order dated 25.04.2023] Rs.2,00,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made.
2.3 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the first round of litigation, no doubt, this Court upheld the finding of the Commission insofar as deficiency in service is concerned, but the quantum of compensation was set aside while recording a finding that there was no material placed on record by the respondent to justify the claim. After remand, the respondent produced photocopies of certain documents in her evidence before the Commission on 21.02.2023. To the aforesaid application filed by the respondent seeking to produce photocopies of certain documents in evidence, the appellant filed affidavit dated 16.03.2023 wherein the documents filed by the respondent were denied. Additionally, in the reply filed by the appellant to the respondent’s aforesaid application, it was stated that most of the documents were dim or illegible and were mere photocopies. It was also stated that respondent is improving her case by adducing evidence and adding pleadings that were not present in her original complaint.
3.1 Along with the aforesaid affidavit, two other applications were also filed; one was for production of original documents, photocopies of which were sought to be produced by the respondent in evidence, and another for seeking permission of the C
Compensation claims in consumer disputes must be substantiated by credible evidence, and reliance on photocopies without originals is insufficient to justify substantial damages.
Question as to whether there was a deficiency in service or not would be a question of fact – Once deficiency in service is proved then consumer is entitled to be suitably compensated under different....
1) Complainant was a model for hair products but due to hair cutting against her instructions, by the Opp. Party No.2 she lost her expected assignments and suffered huge loss, underwent severe mental....
Negligent service in hair treatment constitutes deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, justifying significant compensation for emotional and professional harm.
Compensation must align proportionately with the actual damages incurred, and excessive punitive measures without rational basis contravene principles of justice.
Quasi-judicial bodies must provide reasons for decisions affecting rights; failure to do so constitutes legal infirmity, particularly when reducing awarded compensation.
The court emphasized the principle that the High Court should not substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by authorities below unless the decision shocks the conscience of the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
