Legal Review and Analysis of ITC Limited vs Aashna Roy 2026 INSC 135
Synopsis
This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, addresses the critical interplay between the consumer-friendly, informal adjudication process under the Consumer Protection Act and the fundamental principles of natural justice and evidentiary proof, especially when awarding substantial monetary compensation. The core issue revolved around whether photocopies of documents, unsupported by originals, authentication, or an opportunity for cross-examination, constitute sufficient evidence to justify a compensation award of crores of rupees for alleged deficiency in service. The Court reaffirmed that while procedural technicalities are relaxed in consumer fora, claims for colossal damages must be substantiated by trustworthy and reliable evidence.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: ITC Limited (Appellant) vs. Aashna Roy (Respondent)
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No.: 3318 of 2023
Date of Judgment: February 06, 2026
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal (Author) and another Hon'ble Judge (name not explicit in provided text).
Citation: 2026 INSC 135
Bench Type: Division Bench
2. Legal Framework and Pertinent Precedents
a) Primary Legislation:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the 1986 Act"):
Sections 12, 13 & 14: Govern the procedure for filing and adjudicating complaints before the District Forum, including the powers to admit complaints and pass orders.
Section 22: Governs the procedure before the National Commission, applying the provisions of Sections 12, 13, and 14 with necessary modifications.
Section 13(4): Specifically provides that in trying a complaint, evidence may be taken on affidavit and a commission may be issued for examination of witnesses, highlighting the intended flexibility and speed of the process.
b) Evidentiary Principles:
The Supreme Court consistently held that the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) are not applicable to proceedings under the 1986 Act (Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee).
However, consumer fora are unequivocally bound by the Principles of Natural Justice (audi alteram partem – hear the other side).
c) Key Precedents Relied Upon:
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee: Clarified that the National Commission, while a judicial body, is not a civil court under the CPC. Its procedure is guided by the 1986 Act and natural justice.
Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi: Explained the procedure for recording evidence, including the use of affidavits and the Commission's power to allow cross-examination via written questions, video conference, or appointed commissioner to avoid delays.
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple: Cited to distinguish between objections to the admissibility of a document (which can be raised at any stage) and objections to the mode of proof (which must be raised when the document is tendered).
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The respondent, Aashna Roy, visited the beauty salon at the appellant's (ITC) hotel on April 12, 2018, for a haircut. Dissatisfied, she filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in July 2018.
In the first round, the NCDRC found deficiency in service and awarded ₹2 crores as compensation. The Supreme Court, while upholding the finding of deficiency, set aside the compensation on February 7, 2023, because the respondent had placed no material evidence on record to justify the quantum. The matter was remanded solely for reassessment of compensation.
Upon remand, the respondent enhanced her claim to ₹5.2 crores and filed an affidavit with numerous photocopies of documents (pay slips, emails, offer letters, certificates from modelling agencies, a doctor's note) to substantiate her alleged financial and career losses.
The appellant (ITC) filed a reply denying the documents, requested production of originals, and sought permission to cross-examine the respondent.
The NCDRC, in the second round, ignored the appellant's applications and again awarded ₹2 crores as compensation.
ITC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing a violation of natural justice and a complete lack of reliable evidence.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Court framed the appeal around the following core issues:
a) Whether the NCDRC, in awarding compensation of ₹2 crores, acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant the right to test the evidence (through cross-examination or production of originals)?
b) Whether the photocopies of documents filed by the respondent, without any authentication, originals, or examination of their authors, constituted sufficient and reliable evidence to justify an award of compensation running into crores of rupees?
c) Whether the NCDRC's award was based on conjectures and surmises rather than material evidence, as mandated by the Supreme Court in its earlier remand order?
5. Ratio Decidendi of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and drastically reduced the compensation. The core legal reasoning is as follows:
Flexibility Does Not Mean Absence of Proof: While the 1986 Act provides a flexible and speedy procedure (allowing evidence on affidavit, etc.), this does not dispense with the requirement of proving a claim with trustworthy evidence, especially when the claim is for an extraordinarily high amount. The foundational principles of justice require that a party must prove its case.
Inadmissibility of Unproven Photocopies: Mere photocopies of documents, denied by the opposite party, where the originals are not produced, the authors are not examined, and no foundation is laid for their secondary evidence (as per general evidence law principles), cannot be relied upon to award compensation. They are, in essence, "no evidence."
Natural Justice was Violated: The NCDRC committed a serious error by not considering the appellant's applications for the production of originals and for cross-examination. Denying a party the right to challenge the veracity of documents that form the sole basis of a multi-crore claim is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Compensation Must be Evidence-Based: The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier remand observation: "quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking." A claimant's assertions, unsupported by credible proof, cannot translate into a monetary award.
6. Legal Principles Established and Reinforced
This judgment authoritatively clarifies the evidentiary threshold in consumer cases involving large compensation claims:
The Evidence Threshold Scales with the Claim: The informality of consumer proceedings is not a license to award compensation without proof. The magnitude of the claim dictates the degree of evidentiary scrutiny required. A claim for crores cannot be sustained by unverified photocopies.
Photocopies are Not Self-Proving: A photocopy, by itself, has no evidentiary value unless the party introducing it (a) accounts for the non-production of the original, and (b) takes steps to authenticate the copy, either by producing the original, examining its author, or other reliable means.
Right to Cross-Examination is Integral to Natural Justice: Even in summary proceedings, where a decision is likely to be based on documentary evidence heavily contested, the opposing party must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. The NCDRC has the tools (like ordering cross-examination via commission or video conferencing) to balance speed with fairness.
7. Judicial Examination and Analysis
The Supreme Court's analysis was meticulous and step-wise:
Contextualizing the Remand: It first recalled its earlier judgment, which had specifically sent the case back due to an evidentiary vacuum regarding quantum.
Scrutiny of the "Evidence" Filed: The Court meticulously examined each category of document filed by the respondent (pay slips, emails, offer letters, certificates). It pointed out fatal flaws: lack of dates, missing letterheads, absence of causal links to the haircut incident, internal contradictions (e.g., holding a senior corporate job while claiming full-time film roles), and the failure to show actual monetary loss or revoked offers.
Procedure Followed by NCDRC: The Court noted that the NCDRC proceeded to decide the case without adjudicating the appellant's pending applications for originals and cross-examination. This was a critical procedural failure.
Application of Precedent on Evidence: The Court cited R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder to underscore that an objection to the very admissibility of a document (like an unproven photocopy) can be raised at any stage, including in appeal.
Balancing the Consumer Protection Ethos: The Court acknowledged the consumer-friendly nature of the 1986 Act but clarified that this ethos cannot override basic tenets of justice. It referenced Dr. J.J. Merchant to show that the Act itself provides mechanisms (like issuing a commission) to test evidence without causing inordinate delay.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Core Outcome: The Supreme Court partially allowed ITC's appeal. It set aside the NCDRC's award of ₹2 crores. It held that the respondent was entitled only to the ₹25 lakhs that ITC had already deposited in the Supreme Court pursuant to the first round of litigation. This amount was deemed sufficient compensation in the absence of any reliable proof of higher loss.
Critical Perspective: This judgment serves as a crucial corrective, preventing the consumer redressal mechanism from being used for unsubstantiated, extravagant claims. It upholds the dignity of the process by insisting that even in a beneficial legislation, the outcome must be rooted in proof, not sympathy or presumption. The Court drew a clear line: consumer forums are for redressal, not windfalls.
Implication: The decision reinforces responsible litigation. Complainants seeking significant damages must be prepared to lead cogent, verifiable evidence. Conversely, it obligates Consumer Commissions to act as fair adjudicators, not mere rubber stamps, by ensuring the opposite party has a fair chance to contest the evidence, even within a streamlined procedure.
(MCQs)
1. According to the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. vs. Aashna Roy, what is the status of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in proceedings before the National Consumer Commission?
a) It is strictly and fully applicable.
b) It is not applicable at all.
c) Its strict rules are not applicable, but the Commission must follow principles of natural justice.
d) It is applicable only for determining the admissibility of documents.
2. In the context of awarding compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court held that the reliance on mere photocopies of documents is permissible only when?
a) The opposite party does not object to them.
b) The claim amount is relatively small.
c) The photocopies are notarized.
d) The originals are accounted for and the copies are authenticated through a proper procedure.
3. Which provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically empowers the Consumer Fora to take evidence on affidavit and issue commission for examination of witnesses?
a) Section 12
b) Section 13(4)
c) Section 14
d) Section 22
4. The Supreme Court reduced the compensation awarded to the respondent primarily because?
a) The deficiency in service was not proven.
b) The respondent had refused free legal aid.
c) The huge claim was not supported by trustworthy and reliable evidence, being based on unproven photocopies.
d) The appellant hotel had a good reputation.
Blog Posts
