Supreme Court trims payout to model over ‘bad haircut’ from Rs 2 crore to Rs 25 lakh: ‘Damages can’t be based on whims’

‘4 inches of hair trimmed’

The complainant, who described herself as a highly educated management post-graduate from IIM Calcutta with a diploma in Mass Communication, approached the commission alleging a deficiency in service by the salon run by the corporation. She further stated the following:

• On April 12, 2018, she visited the salon at Hotel ITC Maurya in Delhi for a haircut ahead of an interview. Her haircut was performed by a hairstylist who was not her regular stylist.
• She was “shocked” to find that, despite her specific instructions for long flicks/layers, the stylist trimmed down “4 inches of her hair from the bottom”.

The case progressed as follows following the complaint by the model:

• The corporation concerned maintained that the complainant’s hair was trimmed strictly as per her instructions and to her satisfaction.

• The commission in 2021 awarded her a compensation of Rs 2 crore, holding that the chemical used in hair treatment had caused permanent damage to her scalp.
• The commission also noted that the complainant had to undergo a severe mental breakdown and trauma due to the negligence of the salon, and also had to lose job opportunities.

‘Compensation must be based on evidence’

• In the first round of litigation, the court in February 2023 upheld the findings of the commission regarding the deficiency of service of the corporation.
• The compensation was set aside, observing that there was no reliable material placed on record to justify such a high amount.
• The Supreme Court did not find any justification in awarding the huge compensation of Rs 2 crore under the head of “pain, suffering and trauma” of the complainant.
• The case was remanded back to the commission to decide the compensation after examining the evidence provided by the complainant.
• Initially, the claim of the complainant was Rs 3 crore. However, after the matter was remitted back to the Commission, the claim of compensation was increased to Rs 5.20 crore.
• In the second round of litigation, when the matter went back to the commission, the complainant placed on record various documents to support her claim, which was denied by the corporation.
• The quantification of compensation has to be based upon “material evidence” and not on the “mere asking” of the complainant.
• It is not a case where the commission was considering a small issue where compensation could be awarded by applying a thumb rule.
• It is important to establish that some loss has been suffered by the woman due to the deficiency of services to claim compensation of crores of rupees.
• The model has produced photocopies of various documents, such as loss of job, loss of modelling assignments and the certificate from a doctor stating mental trauma, depression and anxiety.
• The model has not taken any steps to prove the authenticity of those documents despite the denial of all the documents filed to claim damages.

• Some of the documents even have dates before the incident of haircut, which clearly suggest discrepancies in the photocopies of the documents produced by the woman.
• Loss cannot be established by merely producing photocopies of the documents.
• The commission’s observation that the woman may not have maintained the originals of the documents because of the trauma suffered due to that incident is not a valid justification to award such huge compensation.
• There could be other means to justify the claim made based on the photocopies of the documents.
• The woman had not made a case for the award of such huge compensation.
• The appeal is allowed partially with the modification of the amount of the compensation from Rs 2 crore to Rs 25 lakh.

‘Photocopied documents, imaginary amount’

• The corporation argued that in the first round of litigation, the court upheld the finding of the commission, but the quantum of compensation was set aside while recording a finding that there was no material placed on record by the woman to justify the claim.
• The corporation sought the production of original documents and permission to cross-examine the woman, but it was denied in the first round of litigation.
• The documents produced by the woman were denied by the corporation, as most of the documents were dim or illegible and were mere photocopies.
• It was also stated that the woman is improving her case by adducing evidence and adding pleadings that were not present in her original complaint.
• It is a case of complete violation of principles of natural justice and the law, the production and appreciation of evidence placed on record.
• The amount claimed by the model was totally imaginary with no loss suffered by her in any manner.
• Even if the photocopies of the documents placed on record are considered, the amount of compensation claimed could not possibly be justified.
• The allegation of the deficiency of services and dissatisfaction with the haircut is not true.
• The CCTV camera footage showing the model entering and exiting the salon suggests that the woman was satisfied with the services.
• The documents placed on record by the woman have various discrepancies which question its authenticity.
• None of the documents produced by the woman in the second round of litigation was placed on record in the earlier round of litigation.
• The entire findings recorded by the commission were based on conjectures and surmises with no admissible evidence on record.

‘Hair style is confidence, lost opportunities’

• The complainant claimed that in the first round of litigation, the court had upheld the findings of the Commission regarding the deficiency in service offered by the salon of the hotel and the matter was remanded back only to decide the compensation.
• She should not be deprived of compensation for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by her merely because she is not “legally trained”.
• Her prosperous career was derailed because of the deficiency of services.
• The length and style of a woman’s haircut always have a relation with her confidence, and is relevant for any managerial job or for a role in any movie or modelling assignment.
• The woman has been running from pillar to post for the last seven years and has still not been compensated adequately on account of a deficiency in service.
• It is a lapse on the part of the corporation, who have not summoned and cross-examined the employers and agencies that had offered her roles in films or modelling assignments, to challenge the credibility of the documents produced by her.
• She also argued that it is too late now for the corporation to claim that they had not been offered the opportunity once they had “missed the bus”.