Supreme Court Overturns Excessive Compensation Award for Salon Services

ITC LIMITED Versus AASHNA ROY

ITC LIMITED Versus AASHNA ROY - TMI Issues involved:
1. Deficiency in service leading to faulty hair styling and damage caused during treatment.
2. Quantum of compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
3. Adequacy of evidence presented to support the compensation claims.
4. Legal representation and assistance to the respondent.
5. Setting aside the NCDRC's compensation award and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue 1: Deficiency in service leading to faulty hair styling and damage caused during treatment:
The respondent visited a salon for hair styling but received a haircut contrary to her instructions, resulting in significant emotional distress, career setbacks, and physical damage to her scalp during subsequent treatments. The NCDRC found negligence on the part of the salon in providing services and causing harm to the respondent's hair and scalp. The NCDRC awarded compensation of Rs.2 crores due to the deficient services provided.

Issue 2: Quantum of compensation awarded by the NCDRC:
The NCDRC justified the compensation by considering the impact of the faulty hair styling on the respondent's career, emotional well-being, and physical health. The NCDRC highlighted the importance of hair in a woman's life, especially in modeling and advertising industries. The compensation was intended to cover loss of income, mental trauma, pain and suffering, and the respondent's career prospects. However, the Supreme Court found the awarded amount of Rs.2 crores to be excessive and disproportionate, lacking substantial evidence to support such a high figure.

Issue 3: Adequacy of evidence presented to support the compensation claims:
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent failed to provide sufficient material to substantiate her compensation claims, such as details of her job, modeling assignments, or income. The lack of evidence regarding her existing job, emoluments, or future modeling prospects made it challenging to quantify the compensation accurately. The Court emphasized the need for material evidence to support claims for compensation under different heads.

Issue 4: Legal representation and assistance to the respondent:
The respondent appeared in person before the NCDRC and the Supreme Court, arguing her case without legal representation. Despite offers for legal aid, the respondent declined assistance, which may have impacted her ability to present her case effectively. The Court recognized the importance of proper legal assistance for individuals not from the legal field to substantiate their claims adequately.

Issue 5: Setting aside the NCDRC's compensation award and remitting the matter for fresh consideration:
Due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the compensation amount awarded by the NCDRC, the Supreme Court set aside the Rs.2 crores compensation and remitted the matter back to the NCDRC. The Court directed the respondent to produce material to support her claim of Rs.3 crores and allowed the NCDRC to reconsider the quantification of compensation based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court acknowledged the deficiency in service and harm caused to the respondent but found the awarded compensation amount to be excessive without substantial evidence. The Court emphasized the need for material evidence to support compensation claims and highlighted the importance of legal representation for effective presentation of claims. The matter was remitted back to the NCDRC for fresh consideration based on the evidence that the respondent may provide to substantiate her compensation claims.