On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India stayed an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had directed ITC, a conglomerate that operates in the hospitality and consumer goods sectors, to pay Rs 2 crore as compensation to a model for a faulty haircut at one of its hotels. The apex court issued a notice to the model, Aashna Roy, on ITC’s appeal challenging the NCDRC’s decision. The court ruled that the quantification of the compensation had to be based on material evidence rather than mere claims.
The case dates back to April 12, 2018, when Roy visited the salon at Hotel ITC Maurya in New Delhi for a hair styling appointment. Since her regular hairdresser was not available, another person was assigned to do the job. According to Roy, she gave specific instructions to the hairdresser but was surprised to find that her hair had been cut off too short, leaving only four inches at the top. She claimed that the faulty haircut had a profound impact on her personal and professional life, leading to depression, loss of income, and loss of future prospects.
Roy filed a complaint before the NCDRC alleging deficiency in service and seeking a written apology from the hotel management as well as compensation of Rs 3 crore for harassment, humiliation, mental trauma, loss of career, and loss of income. The NCDRC initially directed ITC to pay Rs 2 crore in compensation, but the Supreme Court set aside the order in February 2023 and asked the consumer panel to reconsider the issue after reviewing the evidence submitted by Roy.
In April 2023, the NCDRC reaffirmed its earlier order after relying on emails and applications of proposed modelling and acting contracts presented by Roy. However, the Supreme Court observed that compensation cannot be based on mere asking and that the NCDRC should have considered material evidence to determine the appropriate compensation.
The case has raised questions about the standard of service and liability of service providers in the hospitality sector. While the Supreme Court has not yet made a final ruling on the matter, the stay on the NCDRC order suggests that a more comprehensive review of the evidence and legal principles involved may be necessary to arrive at a fair and just outcome.