Legal provisions involved:  Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sections 12, 13, 14 and 22 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan.

Facts

The case started from a complaint against a luxury hotel’s salon for an unsatisfactory haircut. The complainant claimed that the haircut caused mental stress and affected her professional career. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the hotel guilty of deficiency in service and awarded ₹2 crore as compensation.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had agreed that there was a deficiency but asked the Commission to reconsider the compensation due to lack of proper proof.

Key legal provisions

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Sections 12, 13, 14 and 22 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issues raised

Whether such a high amount of compensation can be awarded without clear proof of actual loss or damage.

Arguments of the case

The complainant relied on photocopies of documents to show loss of modelling work and medical issues. The hotel argued that these documents did not prove any real financial loss.

Judgement

The Supreme Court reduced the compensation and set aside the ₹2 crore award. It held that damages cannot be based on assumptions or emotions. When a very large amount is claimed, it must be supported by proper and reliable evidence, which was missing in this case.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.