Car Stolen From Valet Parking, North Chennai District Commission Holds Deccan's Park Hotel Liable For Negligence

Brief Facts:

Mr P. Dileep Kumar (“Complainant”) visited the Deccan's Park (“Hotel”) for a meeting. He handed over his car key to the valet parking driver and received a valet parking tag. Subsequently, the Complainant entered the banquet hall. Following the dinner, upon handing the valet tag to the hotel's security personnel, he was informed that his car was missing from the hotel premises. Upon checking the 'in and out' register, it was revealed that the car had left the hotel some time ago.

Despite his efforts, none of the hostel's staff provided any assistance in recovering the vehicle. Consequently, the Complainant contacted the police and filed an FIR. Later, the Complainant was informed by the Police Station that his vehicle had been in their possession due to an accident which caused significant damage to the car. Furthermore, it was stated that the Complainant's vehicle had collided with another car and there was a case registered against the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (“District Commission”) against the hotel.

In response, the hotel argued that the Complainant's vehicle was stolen by an individual who used a counterfeit tag. Consequently, the hotel contended that there was no deficiency in their services, as the thief used a fake tag to deceive the staff into handing over the car. It was stated that the hotel diligently maintained inward and outward registers for parked vehicles. Furthermore, it argued that, despite the vehicle being traced, the Complainant failed to file a complaint against the real culprit who stole the vehicle.

Observations by the Commission:

After reviewing the evidence, the District Commission noted that despite the hotel's claim of CCTV installation, it was apparent that a person named Mr. Charles stole cars from various hotels. The District Commission held that this showcased a proven incident of carelessness and negligence on the part of the staff of the hotel.

The District Commission also took into account that the Complainant, upon the police authorities tracing the car involved in an accident, undertook the responsibility and incurred expenses personally for repairing the damages caused to the vehicle. Further, the District Commission noted that the Manager of the hotel admitted that the staff, upon seeing the valet tag and believing it to be genuine, handed over the car to the thief.

Therefore, the District Commission held that despite being aware of similar incidents in their hotel and others, the hotel acted negligently without due care, allowing the thief to take the Complainant's car. In this regard, the District Commission referred to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision in Taj Mahal Hotel Vs United India Insurance Co. and 2 Ors. (First Appeal No.440 of 2016), where it was held that valet parking services offered by hotels are a special privilege for the convenience of their guests. In this regard, the District Commission held that the duty of care of the hotel extends beyond the mere act of parking the car, and it is obligated to exercise reasonable care until the vehicle is returned to the owner in its original condition. The District Commission rejected the plea that the absence of a separate parking fee negates the consideration aspect of being a "Consumer" under Section 2(1)(d). It acknowledged that valet parking is a service provided by hotels to enhance the comfort and convenience of their guests, serving as a significant attraction for patrons to choose one hotel over another. Further, the District Commission noted that the Complainant was a consumer since he had dinner inside the hotel.

Consequently, the District Commission held the Manager of the hotel vicariously liable for the actions committed by the staff and directed the manager to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment. It also directed the manager to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant for the litigation costs incurred by him.

Case Title: P Dileep Kumar vs Deccan's Park Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: C.C. No.228/2018

Advocate for the Complainant: K. Lavan and C. Abhishek

Advocate for the Respondent: Chinaswamy

Click Here To Read/Download The Order