MR RAMGIRISH SAHANI V. M/S. RAMEE GUEST LINE HOTEL Summary


Complainant absent Opponents No.1 & 2 Ex-parte ORDER . (Per- Mr. S. S.
Vyavahare, Honble President )
The complainants have filed this complainant under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, against the opponents for getting compensation
alleging deficiency of service on their part. Facts giving rise to the present
complaint in short are as under:
The opponent No.1 is hotel under the name & style M/s. Ramee Guest Line
Hotel, whereas opponent No.2 is Valet Parking under the name & style Jay
13 Taj Mahal hotel vs united India Insurance Company Ltd. Judgement of Supreme court
Ambe Valet Parking. The offices of opponent No.1 & 2 are situated on the
address mentioned in the complaint.14
Complainant No.1 is father of complainant No.2. The complainant No.1 was
having one four wheeler car of Tata Safari Car. It is the contention of the
complainant that on 03/11/2011 the complainant No.2 along with his friends
visited opponent No.1 in above mentioned car. At about 12.15 a.m. at
midnight on 04/11/2011 the complainant No.2, after visiting to opponent No.1
had entrusted the keys of his car to one Mr. Guddu Jha who was employed by
opponent No.1 in his hotel to park guest car of opponent No.1in the valet
parking area. It is also contention of the complaint that Shri Guddu Jha has also
assured to the complainant No.2 about his identity and further assured that,
he will safely park the car and the car parked in the valet parking are within the
control of opponent No.1. Believing the representation of the said person
complainant No.2 handed over the same car to Shri Guddu Jha. It is further
contention of the complainant that Shri Guddy Jha also issued valet parking
receipt to complainant No.2. At about 02.45 a.m. when complainant No.2 left
the hotel of opponent No.1 he demanded for the return of his car from the
valet parking counter and also produced valet parking receipt. The concern
person Guddu Jha after receiving the receipt went to fetch the car but he
reported about the missing of the vehicle from the valet parking area. The
complainant No.2 was shocked and therefore again he confirmed the said fact
by accompanying to the said spot with Guddu Jha. According to the
complainants Shri Guddu Jha being servant/agent of opponent No.1 and 2 was
negligent in parking the vehicle unsafely. Therefore both the opponents are
vicariously liable for the theft of the vehicle. The complainants also reported
the theft to police. Complainants also issued notice to opponents calling upon
them to pay compensation. According to the complainants the cost of the
vehicle was Rs.10,00,000/- Therefore, complainants have filed present
complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opponents for
negligently keeping the vehicle of the complainants.15
Both the opponents though served remained absent and therefore matter was
proceeded ex-parte against them by my learned predecessor. The
complainants were called upon to adduce their evidence. The complainants did
so by filing their evidence affidavit. Since then complainants did not turn up
before the forum. Today also complainants were absent. The contents of
complaint and evidence affidavit are very much similar to each other which
need not be repeated again. Since the opponents are ex-parte the contents of
14 MR RAMGIRISH SAHANI v. M/S. RAMEE GUEST LINE HOTEL District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (26 Feb, 2016)
15 MR RAMGIRISH SAHANI v. M/S. RAMEE GUEST LINE HOTEL District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (26 Feb, 2016)
complaint and evidence affidavit have gone unchallenged. The complainants
have filed on record the exit check, statement of Guddu Jha and copy of FIR to
justify the visit of the complainant No.2 to opponent No.1, parking of his car in
valet parking area through Guddu Jha who is employee of opponent No.1. The
copy of FIR shows about the theft of the vehicle. Whereas, the copy of notice
issued to opponent No.1 sufficiently go to show that vehicle of the
complainant which was handed over to Guddu Jha on day of incident was
stolen on 04/11/2012. It further shows that the vehicle was entrusted to
Guddu Jha who was employee of opponent No.1 & 2. Therefore opponents are
liable for act of their agent for deficiency of service on his part. Therefore we
have no hesitation to accept unchallenged testimony of complainant No.2 to
hold deficiency of service on the part of the opponents to conclude that
complainant is entitled to get compensation.
The complainants have shown the value of the car Rs.10,00,000/- they have
not produced the purchase receipt of said car nor complainants have made it
clear that vehicle in dispute was insured or not. The complainant have also not
made it clear whether they have received any amount from insurance
company. The registration documents of the said car shows that registration
was carried out for the year 2009-2010 meaning thereby the vehicle was
purchased in the year 2009. The incident has occurred in 2011 and therefore it
would not be justified to grant Rs.10,00,000/- towards cost of the vehicle.
Considering 10% depreciation per year on said car we are of the view that
complainants are entitled to get Rs.7,00,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle
and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Hence following order. ORDER
Complaint is allowed. It is hereby declared that the opponents have indulged in
deficiency of service while maintaining the custody of complainants car in their
valet parking. The opponent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally, within two
months from the receipt of copy order do pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the
complainant towards compensation for loss of his car. Failing to which they
shall further pay 10% interest on said amount from the date of complaint till
the realization of said amount. The opponent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally
within two months from the receipt of copy order do pay Rs.50,000/- to the
complainant towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards
cost of the complaint. [HON’BLE MR. S S VYAVAHARE] PRESIDENT [HON’BLE
MR. S.V.KALAL] MEMBER16
Important Points In the Following Case:

  1. The valet and the hotel share a relation of master and servant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: