What began as a visit to a luxury hotel salon in April 2018 turned into an eight-year court battle that finally ended in 2026. The Supreme Court has ₹2 crore compensation">reduced a ₹2 crore compensation granted to model Aashna Roy to ₹25 lakh, citing a lack of reliable evidence to support her claims of professional loss.
A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, in a judgment delivered on February 6, held that while "deficiency in service" was established, compensation in consumer disputes must be based on "material evidence" and not the "mere asking" or "whims and fancies" of the complainant, news agency PTI reported.
Also read| ₹2 cr becomes ₹25L">SC shaves off relief for ‘bad haircut’ at 5-star hotel; ₹2 cr becomes ₹25L
Timeline of the case
2018: Roy had visited the salon at ITC Maurya in Delhi on April 12, 2018. Unhappy with the haircut, she approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging deficiency in service and negligence. She claimed the haircut harmed her appearance, confidence and modelling career, HT reported earlier.
2021: In September 2021, the NCDRC held the hotel guilty of deficiency in service and awarded ₹2 crore as compensation. The hotel challenged the order in the Supreme Court.
{{/usCountry}}2021: In September 2021, the NCDRC held the hotel guilty of deficiency in service and awarded ₹2 crore as compensation. The hotel challenged the order in the Supreme Court.
{{/usCountry}}2023: In February 2023, the apex court upheld the finding of deficiency but sent the matter back to the NCDRC to reassess the amount of compensation.
After the remand, Roy increased her claim to ₹5.2 crore. She submitted photocopies of emails, certificates and other documents to show loss of modelling work and future prospects. The NCDRC again awarded ₹2 crore, along with 9 per cent annual interest. This led the hotel to move the Supreme Court once more.
2026: A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan found serious shortcomings in the evidence presented. The judges observed that most of the documents were photocopies and their authors were not examined. No proper steps were taken to establish their authenticity.
“Damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant,” the top court said, stressing that claims involving crores of rupees require “trustworthy and reliable evidence”.
The court rejected the NCDRC’s view that reliance on photocopies was acceptable because the complainant may not have preserved original documents due to trauma. “General discussion in the impugned judgment may not justify such a huge compensation,” the bench held.
No direct link between haircut and career loss
In its judgment dated February 7, 2026, the apex court noted that several documents relied upon were either dated before or after the haircut and did not establish a direct connection between the service deficiency and the alleged professional losses.
The bench clarified that although strict civil procedure rules may not apply to consumer cases, fundamental principles of proof cannot be ignored when large compensation is sought. It was observed that the complainant had sufficient opportunity to summon witnesses or formally prove documents, but failed to do so.
“Claim of compensation was for crores of rupees, for which some loss suffered by the respondent because of deficiency in service was required to be established. This could not be established by merely producing photocopies of the documents. Even the discrepancies in the photocopies produced on record by the respondent, as pointed out by the appellant, have been noticed above. Thus, even after remand, the respondent has not been able to make out a case for the award of such huge compensation,” the bench stated.
While maintaining the finding that there was a deficiency in service, the Supreme Court reduced the compensation to ₹25 lakh — the amount already released to Roy under earlier orders.