The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking.
These observations were made by the top court while setting aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarding Rs 2 crore as compensation to a model for loss of income, mental breakdown, trauma, pain, and suffering.
An appeal was filed by ITC Limited, challenging an order of the NCDRC, whereby it had directed hotel ITC Maurya to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000 to the model for allegedly chopping off more length of hair than she had asked for and causing damage to her hair and scalp.
The commission had taken special note of the fact that the complainant was a former model for Pantene and VLCC, promoting hair care products.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath noted that on account of deficiency in service, the NCDRC had not considered what would be an adequate compensation taking into consideration the various claims made by the respondent-model, either under different heads or a lump sum amount.
“From a perusal of the impugned order of the NCDRC we do not find reference to or discussion on any material evidence to quantify the compensation… In this respect, this Court repeatedly requested the respondent, who was appearing in person, to refer to the material which she had placed before the NCDRC with respect to her present job at the time when she undertook the hair styling on 12.04.2018. This Court also required her to produce the material 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. The respondent utterly failed to demonstrate from the record filed before the NCDRC or before this Court regarding the above queries…” the bench noted.
The court opined that in the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modelling that the respondent was likely to get or even the interview letter for which the respondent alleges she had gone to the salon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the compensation under these heads.
“What could be quantified was compensation under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. However, an amount of Rs. 2 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.2 crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation…” said the division bench.
Accordingly, the top court has remitted the matter to the NCDRC to give an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs 3 crore.
“In case such evidence is led then adequate right of rebuttal be given to the appellant. The NCDRC may thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with the material that may be placed on record on the issue of quantification of compensation,” ordered the SC.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment