.jpeg)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order to the ITC Maurya to pay a whopping Rs two Crore compensation to a woman model whose dream to occupy the top position in the field was shattered due to shoddy hair treatment by ill-trained staff.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath remitted the matter to the NCDRC to examine the matter afresh on the issue of quantum of compensation, though it agreed with the findings about the deficiency of service.
The court noted the aggrieved consumer here, Aashna Roy could not produce "any materials regarding her advertising and modelling assignments in the past or for which she had entered into a contract or agreement for the present and future with any of the brands to show her expected loss".
"In the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modeling 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," the bench said.
"What could be quantified was compensation under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. However, amount of Rs two Crores would be extremely excessive and disproportionate. This court, therefore, is of the view that the NCDRC fell in error by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs two crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation," the bench added.
The court also noted the NCDRC discussed 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 then quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking.
Once deficiency in service is proved then the respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible under law. Question is on what basis and how much. Let this quantification be left to the wisdom of the NCDRC based upon material if any that may be placed before it by the respondent, the bench added.
"We are left with no option but to set aside the order of NCDRC awarding Rs two crores as compensation for loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma and pain and suffering. We remit the matter to the NCDRC to give an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs three crores," the bench said.
The court set aside the order of September 21, 2021 on the appeal filed by the ITC Ltd.
The consumer panel noted after the hair treatment to the woman, "her scalp was burnt and still there is allergy and itching due to fault of the staff."
In order, the Commission had noted, "There is no doubt that the women are very cautious and careful with regard to their hair. They spend a handsome amount on keeping the hair in good condition. They are also emotionally attached with their hairs."
It had also noted Roy has been model for hair products because of her long hair. She has done modeling for VLCC and Pantene. But due to hair cutting against her instructions, she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model.
In her plea, Roy had said she went to the Salon on April 12, 2018, which she used to visit since 2004, for "clean and groomed appearance" a week before her interview. She asked for simple haircut but her hair were chopped, leaving only four inches from the top.
On her complaint with the management, she was called again on May 3, 2018 for hair treatment. This time, however, her hairs and scalp got completely damaged with the use of excess ammonia, resulting in irritation in the scalp.
She alleged she suffered harsh chemical treatment on her hair, causing greying, scalp infection, dryness and itching as well as hair loss. She brought the incident to the notice of the higher authorities but they misbehaved and threatened her to face consequences.
Senior advocates K V Viswanathan and Debal Kumar Banerji, appeared for the ITC, while Roy represented the case herself.
.webp)
