Supreme Court Holds Photocopies Without Proof Cannot Justify Crores in Consumer Compensation
Case Name: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Citation: 2026 INSC 135
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
Held: The Supreme Court held that photocopies of documents, without proof of authenticity or opportunity for cross-examination, cannot form the basis for awarding compensation running into crores under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that quantification of damages must be supported by reliable and trustworthy evidence establishing actual loss; mere assertions, speculative claims of future opportunities, or unverified certificates are insufficient to sustain a substantial award of compensation.
Summary: The appeal arose from proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the respondent alleged deficiency in service and medical negligence in relation to a haircut at ITC Maurya Hotel and was initially awarded ₹2 crores as compensation. In the first round of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in service but set aside the quantum of compensation, remanding the matter for fresh determination on the basis of material evidence. Upon remand, the respondent enhanced her claim to ₹5.2 crores and filed an affidavit annexing photocopies of emails, modelling offers, certificates, pay slips, medical prescriptions, and alleged film and advertisement assignments. The appellant denied all documents, sought production of originals, and applied for permission to cross-examine the respondent. The Commission nevertheless reiterated its earlier award of ₹2 crores with interest. Before the Supreme Court, ITC contended that the documents were mere photocopies lacking authentication, that no income tax returns or financial records were produced to establish loss, and that no causal link was shown between the haircut and alleged loss of employment or modelling assignments. The Court examined the procedural framework under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, clarified that although strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply, principles of natural justice must be followed, and emphasized that objections to mode of proof and authenticity cannot be brushed aside when substantial compensation is claimed. It found that none of the documents were proved through originals or examination of authors, no credible evidence established actual financial loss, and the Commission had awarded damages on conjectures rather than substantiated proof.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order of the National Commission by restricting the respondent’s compensation to the amount already released in her favour, namely ₹25,00,000/- deposited earlier, thereby setting aside the award of ₹2 crores and disposing of the appeal accordingly.