Parking remains a major unresolved issue for Indian Metropolis Delhi. A 1988 lawsuit filed by Sapan Dhawan and his insurer New India Assurance further highlights that parking related problems and disputes are decade-old problems that have only aggravated in recent times.
The early-80’s witnessed the beginning of Maruti 800 legend in India. Touted as the people\'s car and priced at Rs 52,000 it was nothing short of a dream for the Indian middle class which had long cherished the dream of owning an affordable 4-Wheeler. But as much as Maruti 800 embodies the rise of the Indian middle class, so does the 1988 lawsuit throws light on a larger aftereffect of the ‘People’s Car Movement’.
The backdrop
Mr. Sapan Dhawan, the petitioner, happened to visit the Taj Mahal Hotel (Delhi) in 1988 for a dine in his Maruti Zen. As was normal practice in those days and still today, Mr.Dhawan used the valet services for parking his ZEN and was also handed a parking slip as a proof. But to his great dismay upon finishing the dinner chores when he returned and asked for his keys, he was informed that his car was stolen. Now Mr.Dhawan was left fuming and helpless. He could not hold the valet responsible as valet services are complementary by nature. The car insurance company New India Assurance covered the damages and the claims were settled, however, a major question remained unresolved if Taj Mahal Hotel (Delhi) owned any liability for the theft that occurred right under its nose.
Mr. Dhawan and the insurer filed a petition at the Delhi State Consumer Commission seeking a resolution for the same. Upon hearing National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered the hotel to pay separate compensation to the Insurance Company and Mr.Dhavan. Rs 2,80,000 along with 12% interest from January 28, 1999, along with Rs 50,000(litigation charge) for the insurer. Rs 1 lakh to Mr. Dhawan.
What does the Hotel say?
Taj Mahal Hotel (Delhi) challenged the order claiming that Mr.Dhawan was not charged against valet services. Also, the Parking Ticket issued had a disclaimer printed on it which warned the owner that vehicle was accepted and parked ‘at the owner’s risk’. Valet services are free by nature and do not make Dhawan direct consumer. This means the case must be dismissed.
However, all that appears on the surface is not true. A closer scrutiny of the restaurant bill reveals that it took into account both food and valet services. And hence valet services cannot be termed as complementary. The case now is before the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices N V Ramana and M M Shantanagouda. Previously, the February 5, 2018 hearing on the same by National Commission had upheld the order. However, the interest rate on the compensation was lowered by 9% against the earlier 12%.