Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Damaging Customer's Car In Valet Parking

Brief Facts:

The Complainant, along with family and friends, visited 'Street 1522 restaurant'. Upon arrival, the restaurant's staff requested the Complainant's car keys for valet parking, which were handed over. After dinner, when the Complainant returned to the reception to retrieve the car, he was made to wait in the rain for over an hour. Eventually, he was informed that the vehicle stalled due to rainwater entering the engine and was damaged significantly. The Complainant inspected the car and found that the staff improperly driven it through water stagnation.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (“District Commission”) against the restaurant. The restaurant didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others [(2020) 2 SCC 224], where the Supreme Court established principles regarding the liability of hotels for the loss or damage to vehicles of their guests. It differentiated between strict liability and the 'prima facie' (on the face of it) liability rule. The Supreme Court held that while hotels cannot contract out of liability for negligence, they should not be strictly liable in all situations without proof of their negligence. The Supreme Court held that a bailment relationship arises when a hotel undertakes to park and keep a vehicle in safe custody, making them liable as a bailee to return the vehicle in the condition it was received.

Relying on the aforementioned decision, the District Commission held the restaurant liable for deficiency in service. Consequently, the District Commission directed the restaurant to pay Rs. 2,86,341/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. The District Commission also directed the restaurant to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and the cost of litigation to the Complainant.

Case Title: Mr Mukesh M. vs The General Manager, Street 1522

Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 32 1/2023

Date of Order: 04.06.2024