New Delhi, Feb 8.
The Supreme Court has held that a Rs 2 cr compensation to a model over a bad haircut on the ground that she modelled for hair style products and this would affect her earnings was “excessive”, in absence of material evidence regarding her income and prospects.
The bench has asked the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to compute the compensation awarded to her afresh.
The model Aashna Roy had complained that ITC Maurya had messed up her hair-cut and subsequent hair treatment causing her much emotional stress and financial loss and demanded a compensation of Rs 3 cr from ITC. The NCDRC had upheld her claim and awarded her a compensation of Rs 2 cr.
ITC appealed against this in the top court. On appeal, a bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose, set aside the award as excessive and asked the consumer forum to decide the compensation afresh based on material evidence on her income, future prospects etc.
The other judge on the bench was Justice Vikram Nath.
Roy had visited the saloon of Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi, on April 12, 2018, for hair styling so that she would look groomed ahead of an interview.
She requested for the regular hairdresser but she was not available. Despite her reservations, she was assigned another hair stylist to do her hair cut who messed it up.
She claimed that as a result of the haircut her normal busy life was interrupted as she did not look pretty any longer, had to face great humiliation and embarrassment, and her career was completely shattered sending her into depression.
After she complained, the saloon offered her hair extensions and treatment which caused much scalp irritation and burning. The staff was rude and abusive when she complained and she was threatened with consequences if she were to visit ITC again.
Her complaints were an exercise in futility, leaving her with no option but to move the NCDRC.
The ITC chairman claimed that he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and had been wrongly made a party. Other objections were also made on merit.
Among other things, ITC claimed that she was not a consumer as it was a free service and that the claim was exorbitant.
On examination of evidence, the NCDRC recorded that the length of her hair was shortened contrary to instructions and that due to this her looks may have changed.
It also recorded a finding that there was negligence on ITC’s part in providing the hair treatment which caused damage to her scalp.
The NCDRC thereafter proceeded to deal with the quantification of the compensation.
In this connection, it relied upon a judgment of the top court regarding the importance of hair in the life of women and also the emotions and sentiments attached to it.
The NCDRC recorded that she was a model for hair products. Because of her long hair she had been a model for VLCC and Pantene.
On account of deficiency in service and damage caused to her hair styling, she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model.
She was also working as a senior management professional and was earning a decent income.
The NCDRC further recorded the fact that she underwent severe mental breakdown and trauma due to the negligence in the services provided to her. As a result, she also lost her job.
She also suffered burning sensation and irritation in her scalp. For these reasons, the NCDRC awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs 2 crores as sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
The top court said that it would not interfere with the finding of deficiency of service as it was decided on the basis of affidavits, photographs, CCTV footage, whatsapp chats and other material.
However, the compensation of 2 crores was extremely excessive and disproportionate, it said.
The court said that no compensation for pain, suffering and trauma could be quantified in absence of any material regarding her existing job, emoluments received, any past, present or future assignments in modelling which she likely to get or even the interview letter for which she had to go to the saloon to make herself presentable.
“… we do not find reference to or discussion on any material evidence to quantify the compensation.” Nor could she adduce evidence in the top court.
This court, therefore, is of the view that the NCDRC was wrong in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs 2 crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation.
Compensation must be based on material evidence and not on mere asking.
Once deficiency in service is proved then the respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible under law.
Question is on what basis and how much, the top court said, leaving this to the NCDRC’s wisdom based on material if any that may be placed before it.
