What began as a visit to a luxury hotel salon ended up before the Supreme Court, raising uncomfortable questions about consumer compensation and proof of loss. On Thursday, the apex court sharply reduced a ₹2 crore compensation awarded to a woman over an allegedly faulty haircut at a five-star hotel, holding that damages cannot rest on assumptions alone.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan ruled that the complainant failed to prove financial loss with reliable evidence, even after being given a second chance to do so.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to April 12, 2018, when Aashna Roy visited a beauty salon at ITC Maurya in New Delhi for a haircut. Dissatisfied with the service, she approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging deficiency in service and mental trauma.
In September 2021, the NCDRC ruled in her favour and awarded ₹2 crore as compensation. ITC challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
In February 2023, the apex court upheld the finding that there was deficiency in service but set aside the compensation, noting that the amount was not backed by evidence. The matter was sent back to the NCDRC only to reassess compensation, giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence.
What Happened After Remand
After the case returned to the consumer commission, the complainant raised her claim to ₹5.2 crore. She relied on photocopies of emails, modelling certificates, alleged film offers, pay slips, and medical notes to show that her career prospects were damaged due to the haircut.
The NCDRC, however, once again awarded ₹2 crore with 9% interest, relying largely on these documents.
ITC appealed again, arguing that none of the documents were originals, their authors were never examined, and no link was shown between the haircut and any actual financial loss.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench closely examined how the evidence was handled after remand. It noted that every document relied upon by the complainant was a photocopy and that no effort was made to prove their authenticity.
“The damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant,” the court observed.
It pointed out that even though consumer forums are not bound by strict rules of evidence, they must still follow principles of natural justice. When claims run into crores, the court said, the burden of proof cannot be diluted.
The bench also noted that the complainant did not summon employers, casting agencies, or doctors to support her claims, nor did she subject herself to cross-examination.
On Mental Trauma and Career Loss Claims
The court acknowledged that once deficiency in service is established, compensation must follow. However, it made a clear distinction between acknowledging harm and quantifying damages.
“The quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on mere asking,” the bench said.
Pay slips showed that the complainant continued in the same job and salary before and after the haircut. Emails relied upon did not amount to confirmed job offers. Certificates referring to modelling and film roles were vague, undated, or unsupported by payment details.
Final Decision
Allowing ITC’s appeal in part, the Supreme Court modified the NCDRC’s order and restricted the compensation to ₹25 lakh - the amount already deposited by ITC during the earlier proceedings and released to the complainant.
With this, the court closed the long-running dispute that had travelled from a salon chair to the country’s highest court.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023
Decision Date: 6 February 2026
