A disastrous salon visit does not automatically justify a jackpot payout, the Supreme Court has ruled, sharply reducing a ₹2 crore compensation awarded to a model over a bad haircut at ITC Maurya to ₹25 lakh.
The top court made it clear that damages—especially those running into crores—cannot rest on assumptions, personal perception, or speculative loss. Compensation, the judges said, must be anchored in solid, verifiable proof.
The case revolves around a 2018 incident when model Aashna Roy visited the salon at ITC Maurya in New Delhi ahead of a professional interview. She alleged that her hair was cut far shorter than instructed. Although the hotel offered complimentary corrective treatment, Roy later claimed the procedure harmed her hair and scalp, affecting her career.
She moved the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service and sought a written apology along with ₹3 crore for humiliation, harassment, and mental trauma. In 2021, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held ITC liable and awarded ₹2 crore in damages.
That figure did not survive Supreme Court scrutiny.
In 2023, while upholding the finding that the service was deficient, the Court set aside the compensation amount, noting the absence of material evidence to justify such a high sum. The matter was sent back to the Commission, giving Roy another opportunity to prove her losses and ITC the chance to rebut.
On remand, Roy increased her claim to ₹5.2 crore, producing documents to show lost modelling and film opportunities. The Commission once again fixed compensation at ₹2 crore, with interest—sending ITC back to the Supreme Court.
This time, the Court drew a firm line.
It held that compensation in such cases cannot be calculated by guesswork or “thumb rules.” The complainant, it said, must demonstrate actual loss flowing directly from the deficient service. Photocopies of emails, certificates, and communications—especially those riddled with inconsistencies—were found insufficient to establish career damage or financial loss.
Even after a second chance, the Court observed, the claim failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required for a multi-crore award.
As a result, the compensation was scaled down to ₹25 lakh—the amount already released earlier—bringing the long-running dispute to a close with a clear message: consumer rights matter, but so does proof.
