TAJ MAHAL HOTEL v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

p. 892 Copy page pinpoint

A staff or valet, there is an implied contractual obligation to return the vehicle in a safe condition upon the direction of the owner. (ii) Even where there is a general or specific exemption clause, there remains a prima facie burden of proof on the hotel to explain that any loss or damage caused to the vehicles parked was not on B account of its negligence or want of care per Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act. It is only after this burden of proof is discharged that the exemption clause can come into force. The burden of proving that such loss or damage was covered by the exemption clause will also be on the hotel.

31Copy pinpoint31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the consumer complaint in consideration is maintainable as it was filed by the insurer as a subrogee, along with the original owner as a co- complainant. Further, we find that strict liability cannot be imposed on hotel owners in respect of loss of or damage to vehicles of their guests. Instead, the rule of prima facie negligence should be adopted. Applying D this rule to the present case, it is clear that the Appellant has not explained why its failure to return the vehicle to Respondent No. 2 was not on account of fault or negligence on its part. Thus, liability should be affixed on the Appellant-hotel due to want of the requisite care towards the car bailed to it. The instant appeal is dismissed accordingly. E Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed.