MAHESH ENTERPRISES Vs. ARUN KUMAR GUMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.1997 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. The brief facts out of which this revision petition has arisen may be stated as under :

(2.) The complainant, Arun Kumar Gumber, went to Indira Gandhi International Airport to see off his brother on 5.8.1993. He parked his Maruti Car in the authorized parking area for which he was given receipt after charging Rs. 10/-. The complainant on his return found that the car was missing. He lodged a report with the Police Station Indira Gandhi International Airport. In spite of best efforts, the car could not be traced. The car was not covered by insurance at the time of mishap. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum impleading the Indira Gandhi International Airport Authority and M/s. Mahesh Enterprises who was managing the parking area claiming Rs. 1,95,852/- being the price of the new car, besides, Rs. 40,000/- on account of compensation. Opposite party No. 2, M/s. Mahesh Enterprises, failed to appear or filed a reply before the District Forum. The case was contested on behalf of the International Airport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Airport Authority). In the reply a plea was taken that the complainant did not hire the services of the contesting respondents and at no stage was there a privacy of contract between the complainant and the respondent. It was also pleaded that the Airport Authority had entered into an agreement with Mahesh Enterprises vide Licence Agreement dated 14.10.1992. Under the terms of the licence, the Airport Authority was not responsible for deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the licensee. It was further pleaded that the parking charges was collected by the licensee and the responsibility for the loss, if any, was that of the licensee. The parties lead evidence before the District Forum. On the basis of the material placed on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and held that the Airport Authority was as much responsible for taking care of vehicle entrusted to its licensee as the licensee himself; directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,35,972/- being the price of the car and Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Airport Authority as well as the Mahesh Enterprises, filed an appeal before the State Commission. On behalf of the Airport Authority it was urged that the entire management of the parking was handed over to the licensee under the written agreement and no part of the management was retained by the Airport Authority and there was no privacy of contract between the Airport Authority and the complainant. The amount of compensation was also challenged. On behalf of M/s. Mahesh Enterprises, it was urged that the facts alleged by the complainants did not constitute bailment and the contractor was not liable to indemnify the complainant. The State Commission, on appraisal of the evidence and in the light of the legal position, returned the finding that the facts constitute bailment and the person responsible for the management of the parking area was liable to make good the loss. The State Commission also returned the finding that the Airport Authority was not liable to satisfy the claim, in view of Clause (9) of the agreement entered into between the Airport Authority and M/s. Mahesh Enterprises. The State Commission also fixed the price of the Maruti Car at Rs. 1,22,375/-. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the Airport Authority was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. However, the amount to be paid by the Mahesh Enterprises was reduced to Rs. 1,22,375/-. M/s. Mahesh Enterprises had filed the present revision petition assailing the order of the State Commission.