The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member), and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member), found a restaurant accountable for inadequate service as its staff failed to handle valet parking responsibly, resulting in damage to a customer’s vehicle.
Summary of Events
During a visit to ‘Street 1522 restaurant’ with family and friends, the complainant entrusted their car keys to the restaurant’s staff for valet parking. Upon completing their meal, the complainant returned to find their car delayed for over an hour amidst rainfall. Eventually, they were informed that the vehicle had stalled due to rainwater entering the engine, causing significant damage. Upon inspection, the complainant discovered that the staff had improperly navigated the vehicle through water accumulation.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (“District Commission”) against the restaurant. The restaurant did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Findings of the District Commission
The District Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others [(2020) 2 SCC 224], which established principles regarding the liability of hotels for the loss or damage to guests’ vehicles. The Supreme Court distinguished between strict liability and the ‘prima facie’ liability rule. It emphasized that hotels cannot absolve themselves of liability for negligence but should not be automatically held strictly liable without evidence of negligence. The Supreme Court recognized a bailment relationship when a hotel agrees to park and safeguard a vehicle, making them responsible as a bailee to return the vehicle in its original condition.
Based on the above decision, the District Commission found the restaurant responsible for service deficiency. As a result, it ordered the restaurant to compensate the complainant with Rs. 2,86,341/- along with 6% annual interest. Additionally, the District Commission directed the restaurant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental distress and litigation costs to the complainant.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676