New Delhi, March 12
Holding a city hotel responsible for the theft of a guest’s vehicle from the parking area in 1996, a local consumer court has ordered the hotel to pay Rs 2 lakh with 10 per cent interest and the cost of litigation to the guest.
In its order the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission presided by member Rumnita Mittal and member Mahesh Chandra blamed the hotel for “deficiency of service” and said, “We have found the Hyatt Regency hotel guilty of deficiency in service in not ensuring the safety of the car entrusted to it.
Hence, it is directed to pay Rs 2 lakh as price of the vehicle along with 10 per cent interest from the date of theft till payment.”
The court also directed Hyatt Regency to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation cost to the complainant as “he has been fighting this case for the past over six years”, adding that “since interest is sufficient compensation, no further compensation for mental agony or damages for non-use of the vehicle are being awarded”.
Complainant Atul Virmani submitted that on September 18, 1996, he visited the hotel and gave his Maruti Gypsy worth Rs 2,86,395, to the parking attendant on duty to park the vehicle.
However, after a few hours when he asked for his vehicle it was found to be missing. On inquiry it was found that the vehicle was stolen from the parking place while Virmani was in the hotel. Counsel for Hotel Hyatt contended that since no separate
fee was charged for parking the vehicle the services rendered by the hotel were “free” and hence not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
But the commission rejected this argument, saying that the fee of Rs 900 was charged from the complainant as entry fee and it included parking fee and other services rendered for the safe custody of the vehicle.
The court said that “if the vehicle is lost due to negligence of the hotel staff the hotel management cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service,” noting that the “hotel staff allowed the vehicle of the complainant to be taken out of its premises without presentation of the docket issued for the vehicle.”
Counsel for the hotel contended on the back of the docket it was mentioned that parking of the vehicle was at the owner’s risk and the hotel disclaimed responsibility for any theft or damage.
Hyatt’s counsel argued that the complainant knew about this clause in the docket.
But the state commission turned down this contention and said,
“The conditions printed on the back of docket are not generally brought to the notice of the consumers”.
“There is nothing on record to prove that the complainant was specifically told about this condition that the hotel will not be responsible for the theft or loss of the vehicle”, the court said.
