CASE TITLE:
ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
DATE OF ORDER:
3 February, 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Aniruddha Bose
Justice Vikram Nath
SUBJECT
The Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath opined that it is no doubt that NCDRC was right in holding that hair is important in a woman’s life, more so for the ones in modelling career but determination of compensation to be awarded for any damage to their hair must be based on material evidences and not on mere asking. The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of NCDRC awarding Rs 2 crore as compensation for the damage caused to the hair and scalp of the respondent which affected her modelling career and pushed her into depression.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The respondent in the present was unsatisfied by the services provided by saloon of Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi.
- On one of the two occasions in question, her hair was cut too short as against her instructions. On the latter occasion, excessive ammonia was used which caused damage to her hair and scalp.
- On non-cooperation of the hotel staff when she complained led the respondent to file a complaint before NCDRC alleging deficiency in services.
- It was argued by the respondent that she was a model for hair products mainly. As a result of ITC Maurya’s employees’ negligence, her career in the world of modelling was completely shattered and she went into a state of depression.
- The NCDRC after taking into account the relevant submissions and evidences, NCDRC awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2 crores to the respondent m.
LEGAL ISSUE
Whether the compensation awarded by NCDRC was determined after taking into account such material evidences as were required to adequately quantify the compensation?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- On the question of whether or not there was any deficiency in service offered by ITC Maurya saloon, the Apex Court observed that the NCDRC has after taking into account the evidences and contentions of the parties reached a decision that there was deficiency in same. The Court opined that since it’s a pure question of fact, the Court can not go about appreciating evidences at the appellate stage.
- On the question of adequacy of the compensation, the Court was of the view that “from the perusal of the impugned order of the NCDRC we do not find reference to or discussion on any material evidence to quantify the compensation.”
- The Court had also requested the respondent repeatedly to produce all the relevant documents relating to her job, her modelling and advertising assignments so as to ascertain her expected loss.
- The Court was of the view that in the absence of such relevant documents, it would be difficult to quantify the compensation to be paid to the respondent.
- The Court also opined that the compensation of Rs. 2 crore was excessive and disproportionate.
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observations made, the learned Court remitted the matter to NCDRC and directed it to afford sufficient opportunity to the respondent to produce documents supporting her claim of Rs. 3 Crores as compensation for her loss.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
