| Headnote |
Consumer Protection – Vehicles of guests handed over to the hotels for valet parking – Liability of hotels in case of theft/loss – Bailor-bailee relationship under the Contract Act, if exists – Respondent no.2’s car parked under the valet parking of the appellant-hotel – Car driven away by another person– Respondent no.1 (insurer) settled the insurance claim by respondent no.2 – Both filed complaint against the appellant – Dismissed by the State Commission on the locus standi of the insurer – National Commission remanded the complaint back to the State Commission which allowed the complaint – National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – Held: Complaint filed by the insurer as subrogee, along with the original owner as co-complainant is maintainable – In a situation where the hotel actively undertakes to park the vehicle for the owner, keep it in safe custody and return it upon presentation of parking slip in a manner such that the parking of the vehicle is beyond the control of the owner, a contract of bailment exists – Hotel liable as a bailee for returning the vehicle in the condition in which it was delivered – However, imposition of strict liability under common law for loss or damage to vehicles of guests is overly burdensome and should not be given effect in the Indian context, instead, the rule of prima facie negligence should be adopted – To this extent, the National Commission erred in adopting the common law rule – Under ss.151 & 152, 1872 Act, the bailee has duty to keep its premises in a condition of safety, reasonable to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the goods of its guests – Responsibility to take such measures is higher with respect to 5-star hotels – Hotel cannot refute the existence of bailment by contending that its valet parking service was complimentary in nature and that the consumer (bailor) had not paid for the same – Burden of proof is on the hotel (bailee) to show that it took efforts to take reasonable care of the vehicle bailed, and the theft did not occur due to its neglect/misconduct – Entire case of the appellant is premised on the exclusion clause in the notice, and not on the absence of negligent conduct on its part – There was an admission of the fact that one of the three young boys who had visited the hotel, stole the car of respondent no.2 while its keys were under the watch of the valet driver – Theft of the respondent no.2’s car was result of the appellant’s negligence – Exemption clause on the parking tag will not exclude its liability – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.148, 149, 151, 152 – Principle of strict liability for vehicles infra hospitium; Prima facie liability rule. Contract Act, 1872 – ss.151, 152 – Standard of care to be taken by the bailee (hotel) for the vehicles parked within its premises – Discussed – Consumer Protection. Contract Act, 1872 – ss.148, 149 – ‘Delivery’ under – When – Held: In a scenario where possession of the vehicle is handed over to hotel employee for valet parking, it can be said that ‘delivery’ of the vehicle has been made for the purposes of s.148 and 149 – Consequently, a relationship of bailment is created – Parking token so handed over to the bailor is evidence of a contract, by which the bailee (hotel) undertakes to park the car and return it in a suitable condition when the vehicle owner so directs – Consumer Protection. Contract Act, 1872 – ss.151, 152 – Vehicles of guests parked under the valet parking of the hotels – Loss/theft of – Distinction between gratuitous bailee and bailee for reward – If any – Held: ss.151 and 152 do not distinguish between a gratuitous bailee and a bailee for reward – It is irrelevant as to how much parking fee was paid by the consumer, or whether any parking fee was paid at all, as the duty of care required to be taken by the hotel will be the same in all circumstances – However, this is not a strict liability standard insofar as s.152 excludes the liability of a bailee for loss or damage of the bailed goods if he is able to show that he fulfilled the standard of reasonable care u/s.151 – Whether or not such standard of reasonable care was fulfilled will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Consumer Protection. Words & Phrases – ‘in the absence of any special contract’ in s.152, 1872 Act – Meaning of – Held: Though courts may have construed the phrase ‘in the absence of any special contract’ in s.152 to mean that a bailee can reduce his liability u/s.151 but, such an interpretation is incorrect – Words ‘in the absence of any special contract’ in s.152 clearly indicate that it is open to the bailee to accept a higher standard of liability than s.151 under contract, and not otherwise – However, this does not mean that the hotel would be liable in all scenarios or that it cannot impose any exemption clause through a contract – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.151, 152 – Interpretation of Statutes – Consumer Protection. |
