LexITC LIMITED versus AASHNA ROY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 455 : 2026 INSC 135 ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy (Civil Appeal No. 3318 of 2023) 06 February 2026 [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the National Commission was justified in awarding a compensation of ₹2 crores to the respondent-model for a faulty haircut she took at the beauty salon in the appellant’s Hotel. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in service – Allegation of faulty haircut – Respondent-model visited the beauty salon in the appellant’s hotel for haircut – Dissatisfied with the services rendered, she filed complaint before National Commission – Commission awarded a compensation of ₹2 crores to the respondent holding the appellant guilty of the deficiency in service and medical negligence – In an appeal thereagainst, this Court upheld the finding of fact recorded by the Commission regarding deficiency in service, however, set aside the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent since no material placed on record to justify the claim, and remitted the matter to the Commission and the sum of ₹25 lakhs deposited by the appellant before this Court was to be transmitted to the Commission – Review petition and Curative petition filed, which were dismissed – After remand, respondent enhanced her claim to ₹5.20 crores and produced documents on record before the Commission to substantiate her claim, while the appellant filed applications praying for production of original documents; and seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent which was not given – However, the Commission, again awarded ₹2 crores as compensation, and directed release of ₹25 lakhs in favor of the respondent – Correctness: * Author 456 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: From the evidence placed on record, case not made out for such a huge compensation to the respondent – 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 – It is not a case where the Commission could award compensation by applying a thumb rule – 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, wherein even discrepancies have been noticed – Even after remand, respondent not been able to make out a case for award of such huge compensation – On the basis of photocopies of the documents placed on record by the respondent, the Commission erred in awarding huge amount of compensation of ₹2 crores, which cannot be justified – Observation made by the Commission that because of the trauma suffered by the respondent, she may not have maintained the originals of the documents produced before the Commission, hence, reliance could be placed on mere photocopies, cannot be a justification for awarding such a huge compensation – 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, the Commission did not assess as to how the respondent suffered loss to the tune of ₹2 crores – Impugned order passed by the Commission modified to the extent that the amount of compensation, to which the respondent is entitled to, be restricted to the amount of ₹25 lakhs already released in her favor. [Paras 19-24] Case Law Cited Chief Administrator, HUDA v. Shakuntala Devi (2017) 2 SCC 301; Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 337 : (2000) 7 SCC 668; Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhanaka [2009] 9 SCR 313 : (2009) 6 SCC 1; Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others [2009] 13 SCR 1 : (2009) 9 SCC 221; Dr. J.J. Merchant and others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 469 : (2002) 6 SCC 635; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another [2003] Supp. 4 SCR 450 : (2003) 8 SCC 752 – referred to. [2026] 2 S.C.R. 457 ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. List of Keywords Award of compensation of ₹2 crores by National Commission; Faulty haircut; Deficiency in service; Medica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.