BOMBAY BRAZZERIE Vs. MULCHAND AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the opposite party, the Hotel, who is the appellant before us. There were two complainants, one was Mulchand Agarwal, whose car was stolen from the parking lot of the appellant and the second was the Insurance Company with which said car was comprehensively insured.

(2.) Appellant is running Hotel in Mumbai. Complaint was that Mulchand with his friend visited the Hotel of the appellant for food. He parked his car in the premises of the Hotel of the appellant. At the time of parking a token was given to him by the attendant of the parking lot. On this token it was written as under :

(3.) When Mulchand Agarwal came back from the Hotel he found his car missing from the parking lot. Mulchand lodged a complaint with the appellant for the loss of the car. It was the contention of the complainant that because of the negligence on the part of the appellant that his car was stolen. To meet the issue of consideration, plea taken was that when Mulchand visited the Hotel it was for taking food and charges for food included service rendered by the appellant for keeping the vehicle of the customer in the Hotel premises. It was the contention of Mulchand that it was obligation of the Hotel management to compensate him for the loss of his car which was stolen from the parking lot of the appellant's Hotel. His further contention was that Hotel of the appellant was luxury Hotel and the appellant was under obligation to take care of his car parked in the premises of the Hotel and since the car was in the custody of the Hotel from where it was stolen it was for the appellant to compensate the complainant Mulchand for the loss of his car.