Summary
On remand for assessing only the quantum of compensation for a deficient hotel-salon haircut, the National Commission again awarded ₹2 crore on the strength of photocopied documents. The Supreme Court held that a claim running into crores must be proved by trustworthy evidence. Photocopies that the appellant denied, whose authors were never examined and whose discrepancies were unexplained, could not support it. Compensation was restricted to the ₹25 lakh already released.
Issues
- Whether the National Commission could award ₹2 crore as compensation on remand on the basis of photocopied documents that the appellant had denied and that were not proved.
- What procedural and evidentiary standards the Consumer Commission must follow in assessing compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Provisions considered
- Section 22 read with Sections 12, 13 and 14, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The National Commission's original jurisdiction applies the procedure in Sections 12 to 14 and the Rules for disposing of complaints, with necessary modifications. (¶ 16)
- Section 13(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The Evidence Act does not strictly apply, but the Commission must follow natural justice. It may take evidence on affidavit under Section 13(4)(iii) and issue a commission to examine witnesses under Section 13(4)(v), devising a procedure for cross-examination where it is sought. (¶¶ 17, 17.1, 19)
Held
- The provisions of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the 1986 Act, but the Commission must comply with the principles of natural justice and may evolve a procedure, such as written questions, video conferencing or a commission, to permit cross-examination where it is sought. (¶¶ 17, 17.1)
- Damages cannot be awarded on presumptions or the complainant's say-so. A claim for crores of rupees requires trustworthy and reliable evidence of loss caused by the deficiency in service; it cannot be established merely by producing photocopies of documents. (¶¶ 18, 22)
- The respondent produced only photocopies, which the appellant specifically denied. She neither summoned their authors nor had a commission issued to examine them, and took no steps to prove their authenticity, so the documents did not inspire confidence and the appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine. (¶¶ 12, 19, 20, 21)
- The Commission erred in relying on photocopies on the reasoning that trauma may have prevented the respondent from keeping the originals, and in not assessing how a loss of ₹2 crore was suffered; general discussion cannot justify such an award even if the CPC is not strictly applicable. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the Commission's order modified to restrict the compensation to the ₹25,00,000 already released to the respondent.