Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quantum of compensation – Requirement of proof – Remand limited to quantification – Award of ₹2 crores set aside.
In earlier round of litigation, deficiency in service stood upheld by this Court and matter was remitted only on question of quantum with specific direction that quantification must be based on material evidence and not on mere asking. After remand, complainant filed affidavit producing photocopies of documents to substantiate enhanced claim. Commission again awarded ₹2 crores with interest. Held, once remand was confined to computation based on evidence, burden lay on complainant to produce reliable and cogent material establishing actual loss suffered. In absence of such proof, award of ₹2 crores was unjustified. Compensation restricted to ₹25 lakhs already released. (Paras 7, 18, 22, 23, 24)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Procedure before Commission – Applicability of Evidence Act – Principles of natural justice – High-value claims require credible proof.
Though strict provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings under the 1986 Act, the Commission is bound to follow principles of natural justice. Where claim for compensation runs into crores of rupees, authenticity and reliability of material produced must be established. Mere filing of photocopies, especially when specifically denied by opposite party, without examining authors or proving genuineness, is insufficient to sustain award of substantial damages. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 22)
Damages – Requirement of causal nexus – Haircut on 12.04.2018 – Alleged loss of employment, modelling assignments and film offers – No proof of linkage.
Complainant relied on photocopies of emails, modelling certificates, alleged film proposals and medical certificate to claim loss of corporate employment and modelling opportunities. Some documents were prior to date of alleged deficiency; others did not disclose financial particulars; payslips showed continued employment before and after incident. No material established that haircut dated 12.04.2018 resulted in loss of job, assignments or income. Causal connection between deficiency and claimed financial loss not proved. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22)
Damages – Award cannot be based on conjectures – Multi-crore claim – Requirement of trustworthy and reliable evidence.
Compensation cannot be awarded on presumptions, conjectures or general discussion. For claim running into crores, trustworthy and reliable evidence quantifying actual loss is essential. Commission failed to assess how complainant suffered loss to extent of ₹2 crores. General observations regarding trauma cannot substitute proof. (Paras 22, 23)
Result – Appeal partly allowed – Compensation reduced.
Impugned order modified. Amount of compensation restricted to ₹25 lakhs already released pursuant to earlier direction of this Court. (Paras 23.1, 24)
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where deficiency in service is established but the matter is remitted solely for quantification of compensation, the complainant must substantiate the claim by reliable, credible and legally sustainable evidence demonstrating actual loss and a clear causal nexus between the deficiency and the alleged damage. Even though consumer fora are not strictly bound by the Evidence Act, they are obligated to adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot award substantial or multi-crore compensation on the basis of unproved photocopies, speculative assertions or generalized claims of trauma. In absence of cogent proof of financial loss attributable to the deficiency, the award must be confined to a reasonable amount supported by the material on record. (Paras 7, 18–23)
