If you want big consumer compensation to survive appeal, you must prove your loss with reliable, original evidence, not assertions. In ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy the Supreme Court cut a famous Rs 2 crore salon award down to ₹25 lakh, holding that damages cannot rest on presumption.
This page leads with the practical point the judgment turns on: what proof actually wins a consumer claim, and what kind of proof collapses when the other side appeals. The Aashna Roy story is the clearest recent warning that a sympathetic complaint plus a huge number is not the same as a provable loss.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the NCDRC, had awarded ₹2 crore over a hair treatment that allegedly went wrong at a five-star hotel salon. On appeal the Supreme Court restricted the figure to the ₹25 lakh already released to the complainant. The reason was evidence, not sympathy. Use this table when you build your own file.
| Type of proof | Why it wins | What fails instead |
|---|---|---|
| Original bills and signed service receipts | Authentic, dated, fixes who paid what | Photocopies with no original produced for inspection |
| Photographs with intact date and metadata | Shows the actual before and after condition | Undated images or screenshots that prove nothing |
| Expert or medical report on the harm | Independent opinion ties the defect to a real loss | Bald assertion that the harm was severe |
| Independent witness who can be cross-examined | Tested in person, hard to dislodge | Social media outrage and viral sympathy |
| Documented income or contract loss | Converts upset into a measurable rupee figure | A round, large number with no working behind it |
In Aashna Roy the Court found that producing only photocopies, without proving authenticity through originals or witnesses, could not support a very large award. That single evidentiary gap is what separated ₹2 crore from ₹25 lakh.
In ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy, 2026 INSC 135, decided on 6 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan reduced the compensation. The Court restricted it to the amount already released to the complainant, ₹25 lakh.
The core holding is about proof and proportionality. Damages cannot be awarded on presumption. As the Court put it, some trustworthy and reliable evidence has to be led. Photocopies of documents, without authenticity established through originals or witnesses, were held insufficient to justify a large compensation. The principle is general: the bigger your claim, the heavier your burden to prove every rupee of it.
Build the file before you file, not after the dispute heats up.
If a service provider or regulator is sitting on records you need, an RTI request can pull licensing, inspection or complaint files. Our AI RTI Drafter helps you frame that request cleanly.
There is no fixed slab, and you should be wary of any source that invents one. Compensation in consumer cases is meant to be proportionate to the loss you can actually prove, not to the outrage you feel or the publicity a case attracts.
The Aashna Roy outcome shows the ceiling effect of weak proof. A headline-grabbing ₹2 crore became ₹25 lakh once the evidence was tested. Read it the other way around for your own planning: a modest, fully documented claim is far stronger than an ambitious claim resting on photocopies and assertion. Ask for what you can prove, attach the proof to each head of loss, and your award is much more likely to survive an appeal intact.
Riya, a salaried professional, paid for a premium hair treatment that left visible damage. Instead of posting only an angry review, she kept the original tax invoice, the signed consent form and the booking message, took dated photographs the same evening, and obtained a short dermatologist note describing the condition. She itemised her claim as the service fee, the corrective treatment cost and a modest figure for mental agony, attaching a document to each head. Because every rupee had a paper trail, the opposite side could not argue she was relying on presumption, and her claim held up without being slashed on appeal.
For a step-by-step method to assemble and present this kind of file, see The RTI Playbook.
No. Public sympathy and social media outrage are not evidence. As ITC v. Aashna Roy shows, a large award built on assertion rather than reliable proof can be cut sharply on appeal.
The Supreme Court held that damages cannot be awarded on presumption. The complainant relied largely on photocopies without establishing authenticity through originals or witnesses, so the very large figure was not justified and was restricted to the ₹25 lakh already released.
Usually not for a large claim. Photocopies can be questioned. You should be ready to produce originals for inspection or support the documents with witnesses, otherwise the proof may be treated as unreliable.
Treat it as one head of claim with a reasonable, not inflated, figure, and support the surrounding facts with dated records and, where relevant, a medical or expert note. It should follow the proven harm, not replace proof.
Yes, where a public authority or licensing body holds relevant records such as inspection reports or complaint files. You can frame the request using the AI RTI Drafter and then file your consumer complaint.
You file before the appropriate consumer commission depending on the value of the claim. See how to file a consumer forum complaint for the e-Jagriti and DCDRC route.