LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 135Decided 6 Feb 2026
C.A. No.-003318 - 2023
Justice Rajesh Bindal · Justice Manmohan · Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Background

The respondent, a model, visited the beauty salon at ITC's Maurya Hotel in New Delhi for a haircut in 2018 and was dissatisfied with the service, alleging it damaged her career. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission first awarded her Rs. 2 crore in compensation for deficiency in service; the Supreme Court earlier set aside that quantum and remitted the case back for fresh determination of damages, since she had not produced adequate proof of her claimed professional losses. On remand, despite raising her claim to Rs. 5.2 crore and submitting further documents (many of them photocopies), the Commission again awarded Rs. 2 crore, prompting ITC's fresh appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that awarding damages running into crores of rupees requires trustworthy, reliable evidence and cannot rest on presumption or on mere photocopies of documents whose authenticity and content were disputed, especially when discrepancies in those photocopies had been pointed out. It found the Commission had not properly assessed how the respondent actually suffered a loss of Rs. 2 crore and had improperly excused the lack of originals on grounds of the complainant's alleged trauma. The Court therefore held that the compensation award could not be justified on the evidence produced, and modified the order to restrict the respondent's entitlement to the Rs. 25 lakh already deposited by ITC and released to her, rather than the larger sum awarded by the Commission.

Lesson Learnt

In consumer disputes claiming large monetary damages, the burden is on the complainant to produce credible, verifiable evidence of the actual loss suffered: vague assertions or disputed photocopies are not enough to sustain a multi-crore compensation award.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Consumer Rights

Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Vidhya Ram & Anr. vs. Union of India

The High Court held that the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against a technical approach in these cases: absence of a recovered ticket does not, by itself, defeat a claim once the family has consistently said a ticket was purchased and lost in the accident, especially when the Railways led no evidence to rebut it. Similarly, the post-mortem findings showed a severe accident but did not themselves establish suicide. The Court set aside the dismissal, treated the death as an "untoward incident," and remanded the matter for computation of compensation.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Gitanjali Ringola @ Gitanjali Virendra Prasad Ringola & Ors. vs. Union of India

The High Court found that none of the railway officials whose statements were relied upon had actually witnessed the deceased attempting to alight: one arrived only after the fall, and another's account was based on hearsay from an unidentified, unexamined person. Since the Railways chose not to lead any oral evidence to support its theory, the Tribunal's inference of deliberate self-endangerment was unsupported. The Court set aside the dismissal, held the death qualified as an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, and sent the case back to the Tribunal only to calculate the compensation amount.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Ram Bhakt Sharma vs. Union of India

Deciding this case on the same day and on the same reasoning as a companion railway claim, the High Court held the Tribunal's conclusion was not supported by real evidence, set aside the dismissal, and remanded the matter for the Tribunal to assess and pay compensation.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Anita Devi vs. Union of India

The High Court held that compensation provisions for railway "untoward incidents" are meant to be interpreted generously in favour of victims, and a tribunal cannot simply infer a disqualifying cause of death from the condition of the body alone, without real evidence. Since the deceased held a valid ticket and nothing concretely contradicted an accidental fall, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and sent the case back for the compensation amount to be worked out.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Sh. Ramakant & Anr. vs. Union of India

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal. It found that the ticket was not recovered, and that the appellants' own account of the journey was materially inconsistent with the contemporaneous railway record. The family's version of when and how the deceased had travelled was also at odds with statements made at the scene by his brother, who identified the body and was a panch witness to the panchnama. On that basis the Court held the deceased was not shown to be a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Consumer RightsDelhi High Court

Madhu Devi vs. Union of India

The Court condoned the 257-day delay, relying on the appellant's economic circumstances and the beneficial nature of the legislation. On the merits it set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The earliest railway record stated that a passenger had "fallen from Train No. 12505", and the Court held that later variations in the timings recorded in subsequent documents were peripheral and did not show the records were fabricated or disprove the fall. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess compensation, with payment to be made within two months; the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 13.11.2026.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case