Author: Akhilesh Kakade

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy

Citation: 2026 INSC 135

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan

Date of Judgment: 6 February 2026

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent, Ms Aashna Roy, visited a beauty salon at ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi on 12 April 2018 for a haircut. Dissatisfied with the service, she claimed that the haircut was negligently done and caused her great emotional distress and money loss.

In July 2018, she had filed a consumer complaint in front of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for deficiency in service and medical negligence. In the first round of litigation, the NCDRC had awarded her a compensation to the tune of Rs 2,00,00,000 for deficiency in service.

ITC Limited contested the award in Supreme Court. In its judgment dated 7th February, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in service but set aside the issue of quantum of compensation on the ground that there was no material evidence justifying such a huge amount. The matter was remanded to NCDRC for fresh determination of compensation with liberty to both the parties to lead evidence.

After remand, the respondent improved her claim to a sum of Rs. 5,20,00,000 and filed in additional documents (mostly photocopies of the same) to prove her claim. The NCDRC again awarded 2000000 with 9% interest. Aggrieved, ITC Limited has filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the NCDRC was justified in awarding ₹2,00,00,000 as compensation based on the evidence produced after remand?
2. Whether photocopies of documents without formal proof or cross-examination can form the basis of awarding substantial compensation?
3. Whether principles of natural justice were violated by not allowing cross-examination and proper scrutiny of evidence?

ARGUMENTS

Appellant’s Arguments (ITC Limited)

The main argument of the appellant was that the award of the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000 was legally unsustainable and inconsistent with the directions of the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation.

First, it was contended that the Supreme Court had already made it clear that compensation had to be on the basis of material evidence and not mere assertions. After remand, however, the respondent relied only on photocopies of documents, many of which were undated, illegible or otherwise lacking authentication. Special objections were expressed but no original documents were produced.

Secondly, the appellant highlighted that there were a few documents which were electronic records (emails and messages), but no certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was filed to prove their admissibility. This made the electronic evidence unreliable.

Thirdly, the appellant had made applications seeking:

• Production of new original documents, and
• Permission to cross-examine the respondent and other concerned persons.

These applications were, according to the appellant, not duly taken into account by the Commission. The respondent also failed to stand in the witness box, thus denying the appellant the opportunity to put her to a cross-examination to verify the veracity of her claims. This, it was argued, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, the appellant submitted that in the respondent’s own pay slips for April and May 2018 it was apparent that she remained in employment at the same salary prior and after the alleged incident. There was no documentary evidence indicating the resignation, termination or reduction of income due to the haircut.

With regard to modelling and film assignments, the appellant argued that:

• The alleged offers were on unlettered sheet of paper and lacking formal contracts.
• There was no proof of acceptance of such offers.
• No proof of payment and/or loss of remuneration was submitted.
• There was no cause and effect between the haircut and alleged loss of assignments.

Therefore, the grant of an award to the tune of two crores was said to be excessive, speculative and based on conjecture and not the proven loss.

The appellant relied upon precedents like Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospital and Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhanaka wherein the Supreme Court held that the compensation had to be reasonable, proportionate and on the basis of established injury or loss.

The Arguments of the Respondent (Aashna Roy)

The respondent appeared in person and argued that the finding of deficiency in service was already final. The only issue was the quantum of compensation and she had created enough material to make her case.

She submitted that the haircut severely impacted her mental being, confidence, and professional identity. As a management professional, a model, her appearance was an important part of her career prospects. The alleged negligent haircut resulted in emotional trauma, depression and loss of modelling and corporate opportunities.

She further contended that consumer forums are consumer-friendly in nature and not that strict procedural technicalities should dash substantive justice. The Commission is not bound strictly by the Evidence Act, and thus photocopies and affidavits could be relied on.

The respondent also argued that there was sufficient time for the appellant to challenge the documents or call the authors to appear but did little in this regard. Having missed that opportunity, the appellant could not complain after the trial on the basis of lack of cross-examination.

Lastly, she mentioned that she had been in litigation for almost seven years and had endured mental and financial distress for a long time. Therefore, she deserved a lot of compensation for the damage done.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court in part granted the appeal.

The Court held that though the issue of deficiency in service was settled in the earlier round, the issue of awarding the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000 as compensation was not taken up on the basis of the evidence adduced.

The Court observed:

• The respondent only used photocopies of documents.
• None of the authors of the documents were investigated.
• No proper proof of authenticity was given.
• No solid evidence was found for the causal correlation of the haircut with alleged losses of money.
• Compensation cannot be given on mere presumptions or conjectures.

Accordingly, the Court modified the NCDRC’s order and limited the compensation towards the sum of Rs. 25,00,000 the sum already deposited and disbursed to the respondent.

LEGAL REASONING

The Court laid stress on several important principles:

1. Compensation Should Be Evidence Based

While consumer forums are not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but the compensation particularly in the crores must be on the basis of credible and trustworthy evidence.

2. Principles of Natural Justice

Although proceedings before consumers are summary in nature, denial of opportunity to test evidence or cross-examine may be in violation of fairness.

3. Photocopies are without authentication

The Court said that photocopies alone, without evidence of authenticity or examination of authors, cannot be used to justify large monetary awards.

4. Causal Nexus Requirement

In order to claim damages, there has to be a direct cause between the act of wrong and the loss alleged. The respondent was unable to prove that modelling or employment opportunities have been lost as a result of the haircut.

5. Reasonable Compensation

The Court reiterated that compensation should not be arbitrary and speculative. It must be proportionate to the injury that is proved.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Even though there is no strict relevance of the Indian Evidence Act for consumer forums, compensation especially where it involves large sum of money claims, needs to be supported by credible, reliable and legally sustainable evidence. A complainant has to prove not only that there is deficiency in service but also prove that there was an actual loss caused and also show that there is a definite link between the action that went against him and the alleged monetary or emotional damage. Mere production of unauthenticated photocopies, or speculative claims, cannot justify the award of substantial compensation.

FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court partly permitted the appeal filed by ITC Limited. While the Court did not disturb the earlier finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, it held the award of the sum of Rs. 2,00,000,000 as compensation was legally unsustainable because there was no credible and sufficient evidence of actual financial loss or direct causative link between the haircut and the alleged damages.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the compensation of Rs 2 crores awarded by the National Commission. The respondent’s entitlement was limited to the sum of Rs. 25,00,000 which had been deposited by the appellant during the previous proceedings and delivered to her. No other compensation was made.

The judgment thus modified the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the extent of quantum of damages.

ANALYTICAL INSIGHT & COMMENTARY

This judgment is important in the context of clarifying the evidentiary standards that apply in consumer litigation involving claims for high-value compensation.

While the Court upheld the rights of consumers and acknowledged deficiency in service, it had made a distinct distinction between proving wrongdoing and proving quantum of damages. The choice between consumer protection and protection from speculative or exaggerated claims.

The ruling reinforces that:

• Consumer friendly procedures do not remove the need for credible evidence.
• Large claims for money require proportional proof.
• Emotional distress claims need to be backed by some objective material.

The case should be an important precedent against inflated compensation awards in consumer disputes, particularly where reputational or psychological harm is alleged without any substantive proof.

It increases judicial oversight in the determination of quantum but maintains access to consumer remedies.