In the matter of Aashna Roy vs Chairman ITC and Anr. Aashna Roy, the petitioner, was scheduled to attend for an interview on April 12, but first went to the ITC Maurya Hotel’s salon in New Delhi for a haircut. She requested to see her normal hairstylist, but while she was out of the office, another stylist was chosen. A simple haircut, in her opinion, took more than an hour, and Roy was “utterly shocked” to discover that the hairdresser had gone against her directions and “chopped off her entire hair leaving only 4 inches from the top and barely touching to her shoulders.” She was then given a free hair treatment by the hotel, which she is alleged to have accepted after much coaxing. She said that after treatment, her hair became “hard and rough” and that she developed an itchy, burned scalp. Later, she attempted to get help from the hotel staff but claimed that they were “abusive, rude, and disrespectful” and threatened her. Roy claimed that she had unsuccessfully attempted to contact the ITC Group and Hotel management. She subsequently filed a complaint alleging a lack of service from the opposing parties and requested a formal apology from ITC Management in addition to compensation for harassment, humiliation, and mental distress in the amount of Rs. 3 crores. The NCDRC first granted her 2 crores, stating that because the hotel’s salon cut her hair against Roy’s directions, she lost her chance at assignments, “suffered a huge loss,” radically altered her way of life, and “shattered her dream to be a top model.” Additionally found guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of hair was ITC Hotels. The hotel then appealed the ruling to the highest court.
The NCDRC New Delhi president Justice RK Agarwal and member Dr. SM Kantikar issued the decision to grant the aspiring model, who received a poor haircut at the ITC Maurya hotel, compensation in the amount of Rs. 2 crores. The petitioner’s correspondence and proposals for modelling and acting contracts were used by the NCDRC to confirm the prior award amount. We are of the considered judgement that the interest of justice will be served if the Complainant is given 2,00,00,000 as compensation after taking into account the different documents provided by the Complainant, the order noted.
The Supreme Court overturned the compensation amount and sent the matter back for a new calculation of the sum. The Supreme Court made it clear that the same must be supported by proof and not just the consumer’s allegation.