New Delhi: In a significant judgment that brings a seven-year-old legal battle to a close, the Supreme Court of India has slashed the ₹2 crore compensation awarded to a model for a "bad haircut" at the ITC Maurya Hotel in Delhi.

A Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan modified the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), reducing the relief to ₹25 lakh. The Court sent a clear message to litigants and consumer forums across the country: while consumer rights are paramount, compensation cannot be awarded based on "presumptions, whims, or fancies."

The dispute dates back to April 12, 2018. Aashna Roy, a management postgraduate and professional model, visited the salon at the luxury ITC Maurya Hotel for a haircut ahead of a crucial job interview. She had requested specific styling—long flicks and layers. However, the assigned stylist allegedly chopped off her hair, leaving only four inches from the top.

Roy approached the NCDRC, alleging that the faulty service shattered her confidence, caused severe mental trauma, and derailed her promising career in the modeling and film industry. In September 2021, the NCDRC found the hotel guilty of "deficiency in service" and awarded a staggering ₹2 crore in compensation.

The case first reached the Supreme Court in 2023. At that time, the Apex Court upheld the finding that the hotel was negligent but set aside the ₹2 crore award, calling it "extremely excessive." The matter was sent back (remanded) to the NCDRC to recalculate the amount based on actual evidence of loss.

Upon returning to the NCDRC, Roy enhanced her claim to ₹5.2 crore. To support this, she produced photocopies of emails, acting offers, and certificates from modeling agencies. The NCDRC, for a second time, awarded her ₹2 crore. ITC Limited challenged this again, leading to the present judgment.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling highlights a fundamental flaw in the NCDRC’s approach. The Court noted that despite being given a second chance to prove her financial losses, Roy relied primarily on unverified photocopies.

"Damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions... To make out a case for award of damages, especially when the claim is to the tune of crores of rupees, some trustworthy and reliable evidence has to be led," the Bench observed.

The 2026 judgment focuses on three major legal pillars:

1. The Necessity of Authentic Proof

The Court pointed out that Roy did not examine the authors of the documents she produced. There were no original contracts, no bank statements showing past high-level earnings, and no witnesses from the modeling agencies to testify that she lost specific assignments because of her hair.

2. Limits of "Consumer-Friendly" Procedures

While consumer forums are not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court clarified that the Principles of Natural Justice cannot be ignored. A company must have the right to cross-examine evidence when such massive financial penalties are involved.

3. Rejection of the "Trauma" Justification

The NCDRC had previously argued that Roy might not have kept original documents due to the "trauma" of the incident. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that even if procedural rules are relaxed, they cannot justify awarding crores of rupees without a "direct causal link" between the haircut and the alleged career loss.

The Supreme Court noted that during the earlier rounds of litigation, ITC had already deposited and released ₹25 lakh to Roy. The Court decided that this amount—roughly 12.5% of the original award—was sufficient and final.

The Bench concluded that while the deficiency in service was proven, the claim that it caused a multi-crore loss remained an "imaginary" assertion.

This judgment serves as a "reality check" for consumer litigation in India. It reinforces that:

Quantification is not a Thumb Rule: Compensation must be proportionate to the actual loss proven.
Professional Claims Require Professional Proof: If a consumer claims loss of career or business, they must provide income tax returns, contracts, and verifiable financial data.
Balancing Rights: While protecting consumers from negligent big-brand services, courts must also protect businesses from "windfall" claims that lack a factual basis.

The case of the ₹2 crore haircut finally ends not with a record-breaking payout, but with a stern reminder from the highest court: in the temple of justice, evidence is the only currency that counts.

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Citation: 2026 INSC 135
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan