Supreme Court sets aside Rs.2 crore award for bad haircut; remits the matter back to NCDRC

Supreme Court sets aside Rs.2 crore award for bad haircut; remits the matter back to NCDRC

Directs National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to decide compensation amount afresh

The Supreme Court has set aside Rs.2 crore compensation amount awarded to a woman for a shoddy haircut and hair treatment that she underwent at the ITC Maurya Hotel, Delhi.

In the ITC Limited vs Aashna Roy case, the bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath remitted the matter to the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for fresh determination of the compensation amount.

The court said that the compensation amount was to be determined based on the evidence and not on the claim raised by the consumer.

The bench stated, "NCDRC discussed the importance of hair in a woman's life and also that it could be an asset for building a career in modelling and advertising industry. But the quantification of compensation has to be based on material evidence and not on mere asking. Once the deficiency in service is proved, the respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible under the law. The question is on what basis and how much. Let this quantification be left to the wisdom of NCDRC."

The top court was hearing an appeal by ITC against the NCDRC order reasoning that a bad haircut and hair treatment, which triggered mental trauma and jeopardised the career prospects, amounted to negligence on the part of the salon.

The incidents took place in 2018 when the respondent Aashna Roy visited the salon at ITC Maurya.

Slated to appear for an interview, she went to the salon on 12 April 2018 for a haircut. Roy asked for her regular hairdresser but since the latter was not available, another stylist was assigned to her.

Though Roy had not been satisfied with the assigned hairdresser's services in the past, she agreed to give in on the assurance of the salon's manager.

Roy is stated to have specifically instructed the hairdresser for, "long flicks/layers covering her face in the front and at the back, and 4-inch straight hair trimmed from the bottom."

It was recorded that Roy was wearing high-power glasses and was requested by the hairdresser to constantly keep her head down. As a result, Roy alleged that she was unable to see herself in the mirror clearly.

According to Roy, what was a simple haircut, took over an hour. But she was in for an 'utter shock' on seeing that the stylist had "chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching her shoulders." This, she maintained, was against her instructions.

Roy complained to the manager about the stylist. She stated, she was not given any bill. While reasoning with senior officials at the hotel, she learnt that her hair had been sold off by the salon. It was also recorded that the hotel made an offer to Roy for an extension of her hair for the interview or for treatment of her hair free of cost. After a lot of persuasion, Roy agreed to it.

On 3 May 2018, Roy went to the salon for hair treatment. She was informed that an in-house hairdresser would do the treatment under the supervision of her regular hairstylist. Reportedly, the hotel staff convinced her that the in-house stylist was trained and very good at work, thus Roy agreed.

However, during the treatment, she said her hair and scalp were "completely damaged with excess ammonia and there was a lot of irritation."

Roy claimed that the hairdresser scratched and cut her scalp with nails on the pretext of massaging the scalp to open the hair cuticles. Her scalp was burnt after an ammonia-laden cream was applied to it. Only a hair spray provided her with a temporary respite.

Post-treatment, she alleged her hair turned "hard and rough" in addition to an itchy and burnt scalp. Roy tried to seek the assistance of the hotel staff, but they were, allegedly "abusive, rude and disrespectful" and she was threatened.

Roy stated that, thereafter, she approached the management of the ITC Group and Hotels, but all in vain.

She then filed a plea with NCDRC alleging deficiency in service on the part of the hotel's salon and sought a written apology from ITC Management. Besides, Roy sought Rs.3 crore compensation alleging harassment, humiliation and mental trauma.

In September 2021, NCDRC held ITC Hotels guilty of medical negligence in hair treatment. It awarded her Rs.2 crore compensation to Roy. It held that owing to the haircut against Roy's instructions by the hotel's salon, she lost her prospective assignments and "suffered a huge loss that completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model."

However, the hotel challenged the order and approached the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the apex court stated that it would not interfere with the findings regarding the deficiency in service, as the same was based upon evidence. However, it noted that NCDRC had not deliberated on any evidence to arrive at the compensation amount of Rs.2 crore.

The bench said, "From a 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 bench further said that the compensation was excessive and disproportionate, and thus erroneous.

It ruled, "In the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modelling, which the respondent was likely to get or even the interview letter for which the respondent alleges she had gone to the saloon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the compensation under these heads. What could be quantified was compensation under the head - pain, suffering and trauma."

The bench also stated, "The respondent was given the offer to engage a counsel which she denied. This court, thereafter, offered her free legal aid to be provided by the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee (SCLSC) which also she denied accepting. In the absence of any legal assistance, the respondent not being a person from the field of law, may not be able to comprehend as to how and in what manner she needs to substantiate her claim."

Therefore, the top court partly allowed the appeal and directed the Supreme Court Registry to remit the matter to the NCDRC along with the Rs.25 lakh deposited by ITC at the time of issuing the notice in the appeal.

The bench directed that NCDRC should decide the compensation after "giving an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs.3 crore. In case such evidence is led then adequate right of rebuttal be given to the appellant. The NCDRC may, thereafter, take a fresh decision in accordance with the material that may be placed on record on the issue of quantification of compensation."

The appellant was represented by senior advocates KV Viswanathan and Debal Kumar Banerji.