There are two haircuts in play: one of Ms. Aashna Roy, a model and an aspiring actor, who asked for four inches of her hair to be cut and ended up with only that much left, and the second of the Supreme Court which sliced Ms. Roy’s compensation from INR 2 crores to INR 25 lakhs for deficiency of service performed by a tonsorial artist working at ITC’s Maurya Sheraton Hotel (“ITC”).
Ms. Roy’s claim for deficiency of service for her haircut had its origins before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the “Commission”). This forum, established in 1988 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was amongst the earliest tribunals set up in India and has probably had every doyen of the Indian Bar grace it’s corridors at some point during their professional careers.
Designed to protect consumers who purchase goods or avail services [Section 2(7) of the Act], the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) and the Commission together empower individuals to take on large corporations, evoking a classic David and Goliath narrative. Not only individuals, even the Government of India has approached the Commission to safeguard consumer interests. A striking example was the high-profile case against Nestle’s Maggi, which quickly became a national flashpoint.
Even as the framework of consumer law expands access to justice by providing for summary trials, the Supreme Court in Ms. Roy’s case has cautioned against overlooking substantive safeguards of the adjudicatory process. Ms. Roy had claimed INR 5 crores for a bad haircut, justifying it on the basis that as an IIM Calcutta alumni, she had undertaken modelling campaigns, was in discussions for a feature film, and had been offered a senior management role in a large corporation. The gravamen of her allegation was that the incident derailed her promising career and caused significant mental agony.
Despite most of Ms. Roy’s evidence consisting of photocopies and otherwise deficient materials such as an undated photograph or letters on plain paper purportedly evidencing future modelling assignments, the Commission proceeded to award a compensation of INR 2 crores. It brushed aside the challenge to the veracity of Ms. Roy’s evidence by attributing her inability to save and produce original documents as being caused by mental agony and trauma resulting from the bad haircut. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Commission and while reducing the compensation to INR 25 lakhs, strongly underscored the necessity of relying on cogent evidence before awarding damages. Effectively, the only reason the Supreme Court awarded Ms. Roy 25 lakhs was not because she had proved her claim for mental agony, but because this amount had already been deposited by ITC before the Supreme Court during an earlier round of litigation.
While there is no doubt that Ms. Roy would have been traumatised by the bad haircut, the fact remains that there are certain fundamental principles of law which are required to be proven before a court can grant damages for mental agony. Demonstrating manifest injury as being caused by the mental agony is one such principle. This can be gleamed from the decision in Halliday vs Creation Consumer Finance Ltd where the English Court of Appeal (Civil Division) awarded relatively modest damages after observing that “[t]here is … no contemporary evidence of any manifestation of injury to feelings and distress apart from what one would normally expect…”. In fact, in a recent 2025 decision in Sarah Jane Young vs John Anthony Downey, while considering the weight of expert evidence for proving mental injury, the English Court of Appeal cautioned against substituting the finding of expert evidence and held that: “the judge should not have allowed his own opinions, perhaps born of his personal experiences, to override Dr Cooling’s clearly reasoned expert evidence.”
The decision of the Supreme Court underscores a very important aspect in the context of consumer litigation, which is, that while seeking damages for mental agony or emotional distress, it is not sufficient to demonstrate mere injury. The complainant must also establish a correlation between such injury and the damages claimed to have suffered. Very often that is a step which gets missed, as appears to have happened by Ms. Roy’s while pursuing case.
Nakul Dewan is a Senior Advocate and King’s Counsel.