SC shaves off relief for ‘bad haircut’ at 5-star hotel; ₹2 cr becomes ₹25L

NEw new delhi : From pair of scissors to the sublime margaret court, a seven-year-old conflict over a haircut at a five-star hotel ended with the apex court trimming a ₹2-crore compensation award to ₹25 lakh. The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarding ₹2 crore as compensation to a model who alleged loss of career opportunities after a bad haircut at the ITC Maurya Hotel in Delhi, holding that her claims were unsupported by reliable and admissible evidence.A bench of justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan ruled that the complainant, Aashna Roy, failed to prove any concrete loss of modelling assignments, film roles or income attributable to the haircut, and directed that ₹25 lakh — already disbursed to her pursuant to earlier court orders, would remain the final compensation.The dispute dates back to April 12, 2018, when Roy visited the salon at ITC Maurya for a haircut. Dissatisfied with the service, she approached NCDRC alleging deficiency in service and negligence, claiming that the haircut adversely affected her confidence, appearance and professional prospects.In September 2021, NCDRC found the hotel guilty of deficiency in service and awarded ₹2 crore as compensation. While the Supreme Court, in February 2023, declined to interfere with the finding of deficiency, it remitted the matter back to NCDRC for fresh determination of quantum of compensation.Roy then enhanced her claim to ₹5.2 crore and produced photocopies of emails, certificates and other documents to substantiate her alleged loss of assignments and future prospects. NCDRC, however, once again awarded ₹2 crore along with interest at 9% per annum, leading ITC Maurya to move the Supreme Court again.Allowing the appeal in part, the apex court found serious flaws in NCDRC’s approach to quantifying damages. The bench noted that documents relied upon by Roy were mostly photocopies, the authors of which were not examined; nor were any steps taken to prove their authenticity.“Damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant,” said the court, stressing that claims running into crores of rupees require “trustworthy and reliable evidence”.In the judgment released on February 7, the bench also rejected NCDRC’s reasoning that reliance on photocopies was justified because the complainant may not have preserved originals due to trauma. “General discussion in the impugned judgment may not justify such a huge compensation,” held the court, adding that even after remand, the complainant failed to establish how she had suffered losses to the tune of ₹2 crore.The court noted that several documents relied upon were either prior to the haircut or subsequent to it, and did not demonstrate any direct link between the alleged deficiency in service and loss of professional chances.It underlined that while the Code of Civil Procedure may not strictly apply to consumer proceedings, basic principles of proof cannot be diluted when compensation of such magnitude is sought. The complainant, the court said, had ample opportunity to summon witnesses or have documents proved, which she failed to do.“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. Even the discrepancies in the photocopies produced on record by the respondent, as pointed out by the appellant, have been noticed above. Thus, even after remand, respondent has not been able to make out a case for award of such huge compensation,” stated the bench.While modifying NCDRC’s order to restrict compensation to ₹25 lakh already released to the complainant, the Supreme Court did not disturb the concurrent finding of deficiency in service against the hotel.“For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is partially allowed,” said the bench, bringing to a close a long-running dispute.