Supreme Court Reduces ₹2 Crore Haircut Compensation to ₹25 Lakh for Model Against ITC Maurya
Supreme Court Reduces ₹2 Crore Haircut Compensation to ₹25 Lakh for Model Against ITC Maurya
Supreme Court has finally brought an end to a seven-year dispute over a luxury hotel haircut, reducing the compensation awarded to model Aashna Roy from ₹2 crore to ₹25 lakh. The bench ruled that her claims lacked reliable evidence and did not justify such a massive payout.
The controversy began in April 2018, when Roy visited the salon at Delhi’s ITC Maurya Hotel for a haircut. Dissatisfied with the results, she approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging deficiency in service and negligence. Roy claimed that the haircut harmed her appearance, confidence, and professional opportunities, including modeling assignments and film roles.
In September 2021, NCDRC ruled in her favor, awarding ₹2 crore. While the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in February 2023, it remitted the matter back to the commission for reassessment of compensation. After the remand, Roy increased her claim to ₹5.2 crore, producing photocopies of emails, certificates, and other documents to substantiate her alleged losses. NCDRC, on reconsideration, again awarded ₹2 crore with 9% annual interest.
ITC Maurya challenged the award, prompting a detailed review by the Supreme Court bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan. The court found that most of Roy’s documents were unverified photocopies with no evidence to prove authenticity. The bench emphasized that compensation of such magnitude cannot rely solely on assumptions or personal claims.
“Damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims,” the bench stated. Roy failed to demonstrate a concrete loss corresponding to the ₹2 crore claim. Several documents either predated the haircut or lacked a direct link between the alleged service deficiency and lost professional opportunities.
The Supreme Court also rejected NCDRC’s reasoning that photocopies were sufficient because originals may have been lost due to trauma. The bench noted that other methods existed to validate the claims, which were not pursued. While consumer proceedings are not strictly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that basic principles of proof remain essential, particularly when claims involve crores of rupees.
Finally, the court held that the ₹25 lakh already paid to Roy would remain as the final compensation, while upholding the finding of deficiency against ITC Maurya.
“The claim sought compensation in crores, which required trustworthy evidence of loss caused by the service deficiency. Without such evidence, awarding ₹2 crore was unjustified,” the bench concluded, bringing a seven-year-long legal battle to a close.
