As per case facts, the Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant for deficiency in service after a haircut, leading to the Commission awarding compensation. The Appellant appealed, and the ... Supreme Court upheld the finding of deficiency in service but set aside the compensation, remitting the matter for proper assessment. After remand, the Respondent enhanced her claim and submitted documents, leading the Commission to again award significant compensation. The Appellant appealed this Order to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the substantial compensation awarded by the Commission was justified based on the photocopied and unverified documents submitted by the Respondent, and without providing the Appellant an opportunity for cross-examination. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission erred by awarding a large compensation amount based solely on unproven photocopies, which lacked authenticity and proper justification, modifying the Order to restrict compensation to the amount already released to the Respondent.