Sets Aside NCDRC Order Awarding Rs. 2 Crores in Hair Styling Deficiency Case - SC

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the Judgement (ITC Ltd. Vs. AASHNA ROY D.D On 7th Feb. 2023) that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2 Crores to the respondent for deficiency in service. The NCDRC had not referred to or discussed any material evidence to quantify the compensation.

The respondent filed a complaint due to a series of unfortunate events that took place during her visits to the saloon of the Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi. On 12.04.2018, she requested a specific hairdresser (Ms Alem) but was assigned to another hairdresser (Ms Christine) on the assurance of the manager that Christine has improved in her performance. Despite the respondent's specific instructions for her hair styling, Christine took more than an hour to do the job and gave her a haircut that was completely different from what was instructed. The respondent was left frustrated and embarrassed due to the faulty haircut and lodged a complaint with the manager, who did not take any action. The respondent then approached the General Manager and the CEO of ITC Limited, but their responses were unsatisfactory. The saloon later offered the respondent services for hair extension and treatment, but they turned out to be another disaster. The respondent suffered damage to her hair and scalp due to the use of excess ammonia during the treatment and was met with abusive and rude behavior from the staff. Despite the complaints, no action was taken to rectify the situation.

This appeal challenges the correctness of an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a complaint filed by Aashna Roy against Yogesh Deveshwar and another, where the NCDRC allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.2 crores to be paid by the appellant. The NCDRC found negligence on the part of the appellant in providing hair treatment to the respondent, which resulted in shortened hair, damage to the scalp, and a change in the respondent's appearance. The NCDRC also recorded the respondent's loss of income as a model and senior management professional, as well as her severe mental breakdown and trauma due to the negligence in the services provided. The compensation was awarded to meet the ends of justice.

Supreme Court stated, “We are not inclined to interfere with the said finding regarding deficiency in service as the same is based upon appreciation of evidence and thus would be a pure question of fact”.

Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2 Crores to the respondent for deficiency in service. The NCDRC had not referred to or discussed any material evidence to quantify the compensation. The court repeatedly asked the respondent to produce material to support her claims, but she failed to do so. This made it difficult to quantify compensation under different heads, such as loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma, and pain and suffering.

The Supreme court set aside the order of NCDRC and remitted the matter back to NCDRC to give the respondent the opportunity to lead evidence and for NCDRC to take a fresh decision based on the material presented. The court directed the appellant to transmit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs along with accrued interest to NCDRC within 2 weeks. The NCDRC was also instructed to pass appropriate orders with respect to this amount while deciding the aTC LIMITED VS AASHNA ROY