Itc Limited vs Aashna Roy

2026 INSC 135 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3318 of 2023

ITC LIMITED … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

AASHNA ROY … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order1 passed

by the Commission 2 in the Complaint 3 filed by the respondent

whereby compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- was awarded to her on

account of deficiency in service.

2. Briefly, the facts available on record are that the

respondent visited the beauty salon in the appellant’s ITC Maurya

Hotel at New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for her haircut. Being dissatisfied Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2026.02.07 12:28:50 IST Reason: 1 Dated 25.04.2023 2 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 3 Consumer Case No.1619 of 2018 Page 1 of 34 with the service rendered, the respondent filed a complaint before

the Commission in July 2018. Vide order dated 21.09.2021, the

Commission found the appellant guilty of the deficiency in service

and medical negligence. A sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- was awarded as

compensation to the respondent.

2.1 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant

preferred appeal4 before this Court. Vide judgement dated

07.02.2023, the aforesaid appeal was disposed of by this Court,

while not interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the

Commission regarding deficiency in service. However, the amount

of compensation awarded to the respondent was set aside and the

matter was remitted back to the Commission so far as quantum of

computation was concerned. It was for the reason that there was no

material placed on record by the respondent to justify her claim.

In case any evidence was to be produced on record by the

respondent before Commission, the appellant was entitled to rebut

the same. A sum of ₹25,00,000/- deposited by the appellant before

this Court was directed to be transmitted to the Commission. The

appellant filed review petition 5 against the aforesaid order. The

4 Civil Appeal No.6391 of 2021 5 Review Petition Diary No.9795 of 2023 in C.A. No.6391 of 2021

Page 2 of 34 same was dismissed by this Court on 11.07.2023. To complete the

narration of fact recorded in the earlier round of litigation, it needs

to be mentioned that the Curative Petition 6 filed by the appellant

was also dismissed on 30.01.2024.

2.2 After remand, the respondent enhanced her claim from

₹2,00,00,000/- to ₹5,20,00,000/- and produced certain documents

on record before the Commission to substantiate her claim. The

Commission, after consideration of the material produced on

record by the parties, again awarded 7 ₹2,00,00,000/- as

compensation to the respondent along with interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made.

2.3 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated

25.04.2023 passed by the Commission, the present appeal has

been filed by the appellant before this Court.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the

first round of litigation, no doubt, this Court upheld the finding of

the Commission insofar as deficiency in service is concerned, but

the quantum of compensation was set aside while recording a

6 Curative Petition (Civil) No.392/2023.

7 Vide Order dated 25.04.2023

Page 3 of 34 finding that there was no material placed on record by the

respondent to justify the claim. After remand, the respondent

produced photocopies of certain documents in her evidence

before the Commission on 21.02.2023. To the aforesaid application

filed by the respondent seeking to produce photocopies of certain

documents in evidence, the appellant filed affidavit dated

16.03.2023 wherein the documents filed by the respondent were

denied. Additionally, in the reply filed by the appellant to the

respondent’s aforesaid application, it was stated that most of the

documents were dim or illegible and were mere photocopies. It

was also stated that respondent is improving her case by adducing

evidence and adding pleadings that were not present in her

original complaint.

3.1 Along with the aforesaid affidavit, two other

applications were also filed; one was for production of original

documents, photocopies of which were sought to be produced by

the respondent in evidence, and another for seeking permission of

the Commission to cross-examine the respondent. Without

considering the aforesaid applications filed by the appellant and

despite the fact that all the documents produced by the respondent

were categorically denied by the appellant, the Commission

Page 4 of 34 reiterated the earlier order while awarding the same amount of

compensation to the respondent as was awarded in the first round

of litigation.

3.2 It was a case of complete violation of principles of

natural justice and the law for production and appreciation of

evidence produced on record. All what the respondent had

produced before the Commission along with an application, were

photocopies of certain documents with no authenticity. The

authors of those documents were not produced in evidence to

endorse the genuineness thereof. This deprived the appellant of

an opportunity to cross-examine those persons. Even the

respondent did not enter witness box to state on oath and provide

an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine her. In this view

of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Commission

deserves to be set aside.

3.3 It was further argued that the amount of compensation

claimed by the respondent was totally imaginary with no loss

shown to have been suffered by her in any manner. Even from the

photocopies of the documents produced on record by her, the

amount of compensation claimed could not possibly be justified. It

was merely a case of deficiency on account of alleged error in hair

Page 5 of 34 cutting, which in fact was not there. From the material placed on

record by the appellant it was established that the respondent was

satisfied with the services. The same was also evident from the

appearance captured in the CCTV when she entered and left the

hotel. The grievance raised by the respondent was not significant

and even otherwise, the same was taken care of to her satisfaction.

3.4 Pointing out the defects in the evidence or non-

reliability thereof as produced by the respondent, learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that from two pay slips produced on

record by the respondent for the months of April 2018 and May

2018 from M/s. AMC Marketing Research Associates, it is evident

that before and after the alleged deficiency in service regarding

faulty haircut, the respondent remained in service on the same pay

package.

3.5 With reference to photocopy of the email from Pavan

Goenka for some senior level position at Delhi, the submission is

that it was not a job for modelling, there was nothing pointed out to

show that because of alleged faulty haircut in April 2018, the

respondent had lost that job opportunity. Even with respect to the

photocopy of letter dated 09.04.2018 placed on record, it was

argued that the same may be fabricated email as nothing

Page 6 of 34 transpired subsequently, as was disclosed by the respondent. No

certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was

produced to substantiate authenticity of the letter, only a printout

of which was taken out from the computer has been produced.

3.6 With regard to the modelling assignment certain

photographs were attached by the respondent. However, the same

do not depict as to which period those relate to. Nothing was

produced on record regarding the signing amount paid to the

respondent for the aforesaid assignment.

3.7 Further, a photocopy of the certificate of one Glitz

Modelling and Production Pvt. Ltd. was produced by the

respondent to indicate that she had been doing modelling

assignment from 2015 to 2018 and was also offered role in a feature

film. These also do not substantiate the claim of the respondent for

the reason that the said certificate does not mention any date and

no monetary aspects have been detailed out. Moreover, the

existence of the said company may also be doubtful.

3.8 Similar is the position with reference to the photocopy

of a certificate dated 11.12.2017 from Glitz Modelling and

Production Pvt. Ltd. proposing a second lead role to the

Page 7 of 34 respondent in a feature film for which remuneration of ₹60 lakhs

was shown. The aforesaid photocopy of the letter also did not

substantiate the case of the respondent. She had never claimed

that she had any experience of working in a movie. The aforesaid

offer is said to be of 11.12.2017 and the alleged faulty haircut was

on 12.04.2018. Nothing was placed on record to show that any

developments had taken place in the intervening four months.

Nothing was produced on record that the said film ever went on

floor.

3.9 Photocopy of a letter dated 02.02.2018 from Jeet

Surendranath, Partner, FAR Commercials, offering the respondent

annual modelling assignment with a reputed haircare brand and

other brand campaigns for ₹50 lakhs also does not take the case of

the respondent any further as there is nothing to show that the

aforesaid offer, if made to the respondent, was ever accepted by

her. She continued to work with AMC Marketing Research

Associates till May 2018, as per the letters produced on record by

her. Moreover, the aforesaid letter was not on letterhead of the

company, rather it was on a plain paper.

3.10 Similar is the position with regard to a certificate dated

11.07.2018 produced by the respondent from Dr. Ranajit Kumar

Page 8 of 34 Das. It was sought to be claimed that the respondent suffered from

mental trauma, depression and anxiety. However, the fact remains

that photocopy of the documents produced does not show that the

aforesaid doctor is an expert on the subject. His qualifications are

not even mentioned in the certificate. This document was not

produced in the first round of litigation.

3.11 Photocopy of the certificate dated 13.02.2023 also

cannot be relied on as the same is as vague as possible, not printed

on any letter head and does not contain the payment details. It is a

document dated 13.02.2023, i.e. almost after five years of alleged

haircut. Though it is stated in the aforesaid certificate that the

respondent had worked in a short film titled ‘Japanese Wife’,

however, her name does not feature in that film. In any case, it

coincides with her earlier employment. Performance in any film is

a full-time job and it cannot be possible or permitted in case the

respondent was working in another establishment at a senior

position with handsome salary.

3.12 Even otherwise photocopies of the documents

produced by the respondent, as referred to above, could not

possibly be produced in the evidence on the basis of which an

Page 9 of 34 order could be passed. The authenticity and genuineness of the

documents produced was required to be proved.

3.13 The appellant had produced an affidavit regarding spa

in the Hotel stating that as per the requirement of the respondent,

her hair was trimmed 4 inches from bottom. It was up to the

satisfaction of the respondent. In the earlier WhatsApp chats, there

was no mention of loss or agony suffered by the respondent; the

minor issue raised by her was corrected. None of the documents

produced in the second round of litigation was placed on record in

the earlier round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the

amount of compensation claimed was ₹3,00,00,000/- which was

enhanced to ₹5,20,00,000/- in the second round of litigation.

3.14 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that

before the Commission, the appellant had produced a chart

showing as to how much compensation was assessed in different

types of case pertaining to deficiency in service.

3.15 All these factors could be thrashed out by the appellant,

had they been given an opportunity to cross-examine the

respondent.

Page 10 of 34 3.16 Summing up the arguments, it was submitted that the

entire findings recorded by the Commission were based on

conjectures and surmises with no admissible evidence on record.

In support of his plea, reliance was placed by the learned senior

counsel for the appellant on the judgments of this Court in Chief

Administrator, HUDA v. Shakuntala Devi8, Charan Singh v.

Healing Touch Hospital 9 and Nizam’s Institute of Medical

Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhanaka 10.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

4. In response, the respondent who appeared in-person,

submitted that she is a highly educated woman, being a

management post-graduate from I.I.M., Calcutta and also Diploma

in Mass Communication. All what has been stated by the appellant

is a bundle of lies. In the first round of litigation, this Court had

upheld the findings of the Commission regarding deficiency in

service. The matter was remanded back only for assessment of

compensation. The respondent, being not legally trained, should

not be deprived of amount of compensation for the financial loss

and mental agony suffered by her on account of deficiency in

8 (2017) 2 SCC 301 9 (2000) 7 SCC 668 10 (2009) 6 SCC 1

Page 11 of 34 service by the appellant. She had a prosperous career ahead,

which was derailed by the appellant. Length and style of haircut of

a woman always has relation with her confidence, which may be

relevant for any managerial job on which she was working or for

any meeting with officers and also for role in any movie or

modelling assignment. There is nothing wrong in the evidence

produced by the respondent before the Commission which has

rightly been relied upon for assessment of compensation payable

to her.

4.1 It was further argued that the respondent is running

from pillar to post for the last 7 years and has still not been

compensated adequately on account of deficiency in service. It is

a lapse on the part of the appellant, who have not summoned and

cross-examined the employers and agencies who had offered her

role in film or modelling assignment, in order to challenge the

credibility of the documents produced by her. It is too late for the

appellant to now claim that they had not been offered the

opportunity once they had missed the bus. She also alleges that

none of the copies of the applications filed by the appellant was

received by her.

Page 12 of 34 4.2 It is further argued that when the respondent had gone

for haircut on 12.04.2018, she was working with AMC Marketing

Research Associates. She had to quit the job in June 2018 on

account of faulty haircut which led to loss of confidence in the

corporate job. The submission is that mere technicalities should

not come in the way for compensating the respondent for the loss

and agony suffered by her. The consumer courts are not meant to

strictly go in that aspect as they have been created to be consumer

friendly.

RESPONSE OF THE APPELLANT

5. In response, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that to justify her claim of huge compensation of

₹5,20,00,000/-, the respondent has not placed on record any

income-tax return which could have shown her income prior to the

incident and thereafter.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant referred record.

DISCUSSION

FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION

Page 13 of 34

7. This Court in the earlier round of litigation vide

Judgment dated 07.02.2023 upheld the findings of the National

Commission regarding deficiency of service. The next issue arose

as to the compensation to which the respondent may be entitled to

on account of deficiency in service. In para 12 of the aforesaid

judgment, this Court observed that the respondent was repeatedly

requested to refer to any material placed before the Commission

justifying her claim for compensation. It was regarding her

advertisement and modelling assignments in past or for which she

entered into contract for the present or the future. As the

respondent had failed to refer to any material produced before the

Commission in support of her claim, this Court did not find any

justification in awarding huge compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/-

under the head of ‘pain, suffering and trauma’. There being no

evidence produced in support of her claim, this Court had set aside

the award of the Commission.

7.1 It was also noticed that as the respondent was

appearing in-person, as also in the case of present proceedings,

she was offered free legal aid which she refused to accept. Finally,

in paras 15 and 16 it was observed that the respondent should be

given opportunity to produce any material to substantiate her

Page 14 of 34 claim in case she has. Once deficiency in service is proved, the

respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated. With respect

to the question of quantum, the matter was remitted back to the

Commission for affording opportunity to the respondent to lead

evidence with regard to her claim. In case any evidence is led by

the respondent, the appellant was also to be given adequate right

to rebut the same. On the basis of the evidence so led, the

Commission was to re-examine the matter afresh.

8. It is in the light of the aforesaid observations made by

this Court that the evidence led by the respondent to justify her

claim is to be examined.

9. It may be relevant to add here that in the complaint filed

by the respondent initially, her claim was to the extent of

₹3,00,00,000/-. However, after the matter was remitted back to the

Commission the claim of compensation was increased to

₹5,20,00,000/-.

SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION

10. After the matter was remanded back to the

Commission, the respondent filed the affidavit dated 21.02.2023.

We deem it appropriate to extract the contents of the same:

Page 15 of 34

“I, AASHNA ROY D/O LATE SH. ANANTA LAL ROY R/O

DDA HOUSING SOCIETY SECTOR E1, BLOCK F1 FLAT

64, 6TH FLOOR, VAANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI – 110071, do

hereby solemnly affirm & declare as under:-

1. That I am the deponent of the above said matter and I am well conversant with the fact and circumstances of the case and I am fully competent to swear the present affidavit of my behalf.

2. I. say that the accompanying applications has been drafted by me and along with all the evidence and the contents of the same true to my knowledge and belief.”

11. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit shows that it was a

standard declaration made in isolation. Along with the aforesaid

affidavit, the respondent had placed on record photocopies of the

following documents:

“i. Email dated 08.02.2023 addressed by Mr. Goenka Pawan of Mahindra and copy of reply Email dated 10.03.2018 addressed by the respondent.

ii. 12 Messages between Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Mahindra and the respondent.

iii. Photo of the respondent after haircut (undated).

Page 16 of 34 iv. Brief profile of Goenka who joined Mahindra in October 1993 as General Manager, R & D.

v. Additional Affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in compliance of Order dated 23.08.2022 in C.A. No.6391 of 2021 showing her loss under the different heads owing to the negligence of the appellant.

vi. Advertisement of Panteen in which picture of respondent appeared.

vii. Advertisement of VLCC in which picture of respondent appeared.

viii. Letter on plain paper addressed by Pranav Awasti, Director, Glitz Modelling & Production Pvt. Ltd. (undated) certifying that the respondent was offered feature films and has been modelled from 2015- 2018.

ix. Letter on plain paper addressed by Mr. Jeet Surendranath, Partner Far Commercials, dated 02.02.2018 to the respondent, offering haircare modelling assignment (Rs.50,00,000/- per annum) with a reputed haircare brand and for Fashion Features and Brand endorsements for a fees of Rs.20 lakhs.

Page 17 of 34 x. Letter on plain paper addressed by Pranavi Awasti, Director, Glitz Modelling &

Production Pvt. Ltd., dated 11.12.2017 to the respondent, offering proposal for Feature Film on remuneration of Rs.60,00,000/- for the second lead role.

xi. Prescription in the form of Letter dated 11.07.2018 addressed by Dr. Ranajit Kumar Das where he stated that the respondent was suffering from mental trauma, depression and anxiety and also advised rest of duties for 30 working days in addition to prescription of medicines.

xii. Letter on plain paper addressed by Mr. Jeet Surendranath, Partner Far Commercials, dated 13.02.2023 certifying that the respondent has performed as model in Pantene and VLCC in the year 2017 and 2018, featured in the short film “The Japanese Wife” and the respondent had been offered many fashion related projects and hair care advertisements.

xiii. Pay Slip for the month of May, 2018 of the respondent issued by A.M.C. Marketing Research Associates reflecting her designation as Sr. Director at a gross salary of Rs.4,67,468.

Page 18 of 34 xiv. Pay Slip for the month of April, 2018 of the respondent issued by A.M.C. Marketing Research Associates reflecting her designation as Sr. Director at a gross salary of Rs.4,67,468.

xv. Certificate (undated) issued by the Glitz Modelling and Productions Pvt. Ltd.

endorsing her affiliation with them and her work in well-known brands for advertisement and fashion shows and offer of feature films.”

12. The appellant replied to the aforesaid affidavit vide its

affidavit dated 16.03.2023, which contains a statement of denial of

all documents filed by the respondent.

13. Going in detail, though there was no pleading with

reference to the documents annexed by the respondent in the

affidavit filed by her, the appellant in the affidavit filed in response

pleaded as under:

“5. That the Opposite Party herein is filing the present reply to the application and the documents filed by the Complainant without prejudice to the fact that most of the documents supplied to the Opposite Party are dim and illegible, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions taken in the Review Petition filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and subject to the outcome of the Page 19 of 34 said Review Petition. The Opposite. Party reserves its rights to add to or alter its. response and file a detailed reply and additional documents, if required. It is submitted that the documents filed by the Complainant and supplied to the Opposite Party herein are mere photocopies and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Complainant to produce the originals of the documents filed by her before this Hon'ble Commission and an inspection thereof may be permitted to the Opposite Party.

x x x

8. It is submitted that the Complainant has sought to constantly improve her case and pleadings over the course of the proceedings in the present matter.

In the original complaint and the rejoinder filed before this Hon'ble Commission, there were no pleadings, averments or allegations by the Complainant regarding any loss caused to the Complainant at all on any account whatsoever. The only allegation in the complaint was that the hair of the Complainant was cut short by the Opposite Party herein for commercial gain as the attempt was to sell the hair by the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the Complainant, having not even pleaded any loss in her complaint as is sought to be made out now, has subsequently sought to improve her case and has now filed certain documents pertaining to her alleged loss. It is the submission of the Opposite Parties herein that any

Page 20 of 34 evidence or document filed by the Complainant which is outside the scope of the original pleadings in the complaint is liable to be ignored and/or not permitted on the record of the case by this Hon'ble Commission.”

14. Learned counsel for the appellant had also referred to

two applications filed by them before the Commission:

(i) praying for production of original documents;

(ii) seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent.

15. We had summoned the record of the Commission and

found that the aforesaid two applications are available on record.

16. The National Commission exercises original

jurisdiction under Section 22 of the 1986 Act. This section provides

that the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act and the Rules

framed thereunder for disposal of complaints by the District

Forum, with such modifications as may be considered necessary

by the National Commission, will be applicable for disposal of

disputes by the National Commission. Section 13 thereof deals

with the procedure on admission of complaints before the District

Forum.

17. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) are not

Page 21 of 34 strictly applicable for proceedings under the 1986 Act. The

Commission is, however, bound to comply with the Principles of

Natural Justice, save and except as laid down in sub-section (4) of

Section 13 of the 1986 Act. Reference can be made to para 43 of

the judgment of this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr.

Sukumar Mukherjee and others 11:

“43. Apart from the procedures laid down in Sections 12 and 13 as also the Rules made under the Act, the Commission is not bound by any other prescribed procedure. The provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commission is merely to comply with the principles of natural justice, save and except the ones laid down under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the 1986 Act. The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. (See Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn.)”

17.1 Judgment of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and others

v. Shrinath Chaturvedi 12 deals with the issue as to how evidence

is to be recorded before the Commission under the 1986 Act. The

idea behind is that in the process, the proceedings should not be

11 (2009) 9 SCC 221 12 (2002) 6 SCC 635

Page 22 of 34 delayed. While trying a complaint the evidence of the parties

could be taken on affidavits as provided in Section 13(4)(iii). The

Commission is also empowered to issue commission for

examination of any witnesses in terms of Section 13(4)(v) of the

1986 Act. It is akin to Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, which also provides

that in every case examination-in-chief of the witness shall be on

affidavit. Further, witness could be examined by the court or the

Commissioner appointed by it. The Commission also needs to

follow the same system. In case the facts are taken in evidence and

cross-examination is sought by the other side, the Commission can

easily evolve a procedure permitting the other side to cross-

examine the witnesses. The same can be done by putting certain

questions in writing or through video conferencing or by

appointment of a Commission. Relevant para 19 thereof is

extracted below:

“19. It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine the experts if required in an appropriate matter. It is equally true that in cases where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of evidence before a Commission may consume time. The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. The only caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the Act, while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on

Page 23 of 34 affidavits [under Section 13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such Forums to issue any commission for examination of any witness [under Section 13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order 18 CPC is substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined by the court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure. Hence, we do not think that there is any scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence. Thereafter, if cross- examination is sought for by the other side and the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the party who intends to cross- examine by putting certain questions in writing and those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors on affidavits. In case where stakes are very high and still a party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts, there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging telephonic conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne by the person who claims such video conference. Further, cross-examination can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the working place of such experts at a fixed time.” 17.2 The enunciation of law by this Court in R.V.E.

Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.

Temple and another 13 with reference to evidence to be led by the

13 (2003) 8 SCC 752

Page 24 of 34 parties under the 1986 Act was quoted with the approval in a matter

pertaining to Consumer Protection Act by this Court in Malay

Kumar Ganguly (supra). Para 40 thereof is extracted below:

“40. This Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple held at SCC p. 764, para 20:

“20. … Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the

Page 25 of 34 appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court.” (emphasis in original)

18. While remanding the case back to the Commission, in

the earlier round of litigation, this Court had specifically observed

Page 26 of 34 that ‘quantification of compensation has to be based upon material

evidence and not on the mere asking’.

ANALYSIS

19. We may add here that whatever documents the

respondent produced along with her affidavit were in the form of

photocopies. None of the authors of those documents was

summoned nor did the respondent get a commission issued for

examination of those witnesses. In case any witness was produced,

the appellant would have opportunity to cross-examine the same

regarding veracity of the documents and/or the contents thereof.

20. Despite denial of all the documents filed by the

respondent in evidence to claim damages, the respondent did not

take any steps to prove the authenticity thereof. Some of the

documents are prior to the relevant date, namely, when the

respondent had a haircut in a salon in the hotel managed by the

appellant, whereas some are later in time. The manner in which the

photocopies thereof are sought were produced do not inspire

confidence specially where the claim of damages is made for

crores of rupees. From the evidence placed on record, a case is

not made out for such a huge compensation to the respondent.

Page 27 of 34

21. At the time of hearing, the appellant had referred to

each and every document produced by the respondent along with

the affidavit and pointed out the discrepancies therein. The idea

was to raise an argument that none of the documents produced by

the respondent could be relied upon to award her compensation

to the tune of ₹5,20,00,000/- as sought to be claimed by her or

justify award of ₹2,00,00,000/-. It is in the form of a table filed along

with the written note on behalf of the appellant.

“Documents relied upon by the Respondent and Rebuttal of the Appellant to the Documents

Date Document Original/ Appellant's rebuttal filed by Photo-

Respondent copy On Existing Job/Loss of Job May, Pay-Slip from Photo- The Pay-slip does not 2018 one AMC copy indicate when the Marketing Respondent quit her job Research (if at all she did quit). It Associates further does not indicate indicating why she quit her job. that her net There is no causal link salary is INR shown to the haircut 3.53 lakh received by her.

On the contrary, the Pay- Slip indicates that she was April, Pay-Slip from Photo- gainfully employed 2018 one AMC copy before and after the Marketing haircut. Research Associates The Respondent has not indicating produced payslips for that her net other months. This apart, salary is IN even assuming that 3.53 lakh thepay-slips are

Page 28 of 34 legitimate, it would not amount to INR 1 crore per annum, as claimed. 10.03.18 E-Mail from Photo- The E-mail does not Mr. Pawan copy indicate any specifics of Goenka the job informing that she was purportedly the offer, particularly the Respondent salary. that she is 'good fit' for There is no evidence to a senior show that any official offer level was made to the position in Respondent herein with Delhi for any details. which Mr. Rajeev There is no evidence Dubey will presented to show that get in touch she lost out on this job to 'possibly opportunity purely due to organize a the hair-cut. meeting’ 09.04.18 E-Mail dated Photo- The e-mail does not 09.04.2018 copy indicate any formalized from Mr. meeting or offer made to Rajeev the Respondent, Dubey particularly the financial informing details. the The emails/messages Respondent filed are incomplete. No to meet at 11 offer/interview letter has AM without been produced. specifying the date. It is indicated to her to recheck before 21.04.2018 On Modelling Assignments - Photographs Photo- Photographs are un-dated from copy and no proof of receipt of purported payment qua these modelling specific advertisements assignments are shown to prove any legitimacy.

- Certificate Photo- The Certificate is undated from one M/s copy and further, no details or

Page 29 of 34 Glitz monetary aspects are Modelling mentioned in the and Certificate. Production Pvt. Ltd. The money, if any, indicating received from such that the assignments have not Respondent been proven by the had Respondent through any modelled pay-slip, like she has from 2015- sought to do with her 2018 and was salary. offered feature films.

11.12.17 Certificate Photo- The Certificate does not dated copy contain any details or 11.12.2017 specifics and does not from M/s provide any evidence Glitz regarding her offer. No Modelling terms and conditions and relating the alleged role Production are set out. Pvt. Ltd. proposing a The Certificate is a second lead photocopy and the role in a authenticity of which is feature film under cloud. for which the remuneratio The role was offered to n would be her, even assuming that it INR 60 lakh. was, in December, 2017 which was much prior to the haircut. No nexus is shown between the loss of assignment and the haircut.

02.02.18 Certificate Photo- The document is illegible from Mr. Jeet copy and unclear as to whether Surendranat it is on some letterhead. h [Partner The Certificate does not Far indicate any details Commercials regarding ] offering the said modelling Respondent assignments. an annual modelling No agreed terms and assignment conditions mentioned

Page 30 of 34 with a relating the said alleged reputed assignment. haircare brand and There is no proof of other brand payment made, if any, campaigns from any of the for IN 50 lakh assignments

11.07.18 Certificate Photo- The Doctor is not from doctor copy qualified to provide such dated a certificate. Certificate is 11.07.2018 from the same doctor who stating that had allegedly treated the the Respondent for scalp Appellant is disorder. The certificate under is of July 2018 and was medical never filed before by the examination Respondent, either in the and that she original Complaint or is suffering before this Hon'ble Court. from mental trauma, The certificate mentions depression that "She should be and anxiety relieved of his duties for 30days.”

The Respondent's contention that she was in modelling for hair- products also belied by these certificates as the doctor who issued these certificates was not a dermatologist.

13.02.23 Certificate Photo- The Certificate does not dated copy indicate any details 13.02.2023 regarding said modelling from Mr. Jeet assignments. Surendernat h [Partner The details of the cast of Far the film on IMDB does not Commercials show the name of the ] indicating Respondent. that the Respondent There is no proof of has payment made, if any, modelled in from any of the various assignments.

Page 31 of 34 advertiseme nts for Pantene and VLCC and has featured in some short films

22. The damages cannot be awarded merely on

presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant. 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. It is not a case where the Commission was

considering a small issue where compensation could be awarded

by applying a thumb rule. 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, respondent has not

been able to make out a case for award of such huge

compensation.

23. In our view, on the basis of photocopies of the

documents placed on record by the respondent, the Commission

Page 32 of 34 has committed an error in awarding huge amount of compensation

of ₹2,00,00,000/-, which in our view cannot be justified. The

observation made by the Commission that because of the trauma

suffered by the respondent, she may not have maintained the

originals of the documents produced before the Commission,

hence, reliance could be placed on mere photocopies, cannot be

a justification for awarding such a huge compensation. Even if the

photocopies were to be produced, there are other ways and means

to justify the claim made on that basis. Even if the Code of Civil

Procedure may not be strictly applicable, the Commission has not

assessed as to how the respondent suffered loss to the tune of

₹2,00,00,000/-. General discussion in the impugned judgment may

not justify the same.

23.1 The fact remains that in the earlier round of litigation,

the appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,00,000/- in this Court.

While deciding the appeal 14 and remitting the case back to the

Commission, this Court had directed for transmission of the said

amount to it. While deciding the complaint in the second round of

14 Civil Appeal No.6931 of 2021 Page 33 of 34 litigation, the Commission had directed release of the aforesaid

amount in favor of the respondent.

24. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal

is partially allowed. The impugned order passed by the

Commission is modified to the extent that the amount of

compensation, to which the respondent is entitled to, shall be

restricted to the amount already released in her favor.

……………….……………..J. [ RAJESH BINDAL]

……………….……………..J. [ MANMOHAN ] New Delhi;

February 06, 2026.

Page 34 of 34