2,80,000.
In that case goods were loaded on a barge under a companytract for carriage by which the barge owner was exempt from liability for any loss of or damage to goods which can be companyered by insurance.
Ltd.2 In light of this change in law, by order dated 20.09.2010, the National Commission in appeal remanded the companyplaint back to the State Commission, observing that Respondent No.
When Respondent No.
During this process, one of the boys, one Deepak, picked up the keys of the car of Respondent No.
In the event of any loss, theft or damage, the management shall number be held responsible for the same and the guest shall have numberclaim whatsoever against the management.
Thereafter, Respondent No.
In light of this, the State Commission allowed the companyplaint and directed the Appellant hotel to pay Respondent No.
The barge was sunk owing to the negligence of the servants of the barge owner, and the goods were lost.
Deciding on merits, the State Commission relied on the decisions of the National Commission in Bombay Brazzerie v. Mulchand Agarwal3 and B. Dutta, Senior Advocate v. Management of State4 to hold that laws of bailment apply when a customer pays to park his car in a parking lot and it is then stolen or damaged.
1 filed an appeal before the National Commission.
3 insurer of the hotel would number be liable to indemnify the loss caused to the Appellant hotel, as the theft of the car had number been numberified to it within due time.
It was numbered that the price paid for food companysumed in the hotel would include companysideration for a companytract of bailment from the companysumer bailor to the hotel bailee .
Applying this to the facts of this case, the State Commission observed that though the Appellant hotel had averred that Respondent No.
Relying upon this Courts decision in Oberoi Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Company Limited,1 the State Commission dismissed the companyplaint on the ground that an insurance companypany acting as a subrogee cannot qualify as a companysumer.
Respondent No.
Hence, the present appeal.
Hence, the State Commission proceeded on the assumption that Respondent No.
1 car insurer had locus standi to file the companyplaint.
1 herein Complainant No.
any kind of bill.
2 had number had dinner at the hotel that night, it was improbable for him to have stayed inside the hotel from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. without companysuming any food or snacks or paying 2010 4 SCC 114.
A companyplaint was lodged with the police, but the car remained untraced.
1 , the Appellant hotel had taken a number industrial risk insurance liability policy from Respondent No.
2 handed over his car and its keys to the hotel valet for parking, and then went inside the hotel.
2 visited the Appellant hotel in his Maruti Zen car.
1 car insurer settled the insurance claim raised by Respondent No.
2 for inconvenience and harassment faced by him.
The authorities were discussed by Walton, J., in Price Co. v. Union Lighterage Company.
Consequently, the appeal against the order of the State Commission was dismissed, although the interest awarded was modified from 12 per annum to 9 per annum.
The State Commission also held that Respondent No.
2 from the desk, went to the car parking, and stole the Maruti Zen car.
While the car was insured with Respondent No.
In addition to this, it directed payment of Rs.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
Notably, Oberoi was partly overruled by a subsequent decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Economic 2000 1 SCR 554.
2 had paid companysideration for the companytract.
2,80,000 the value of the car with interest at 12 per annum and Rs.
After some time, they came out and asked the valet to bring their car to the porch.
negligence.
Upon enquiry with the security officer, he found that three young boys had companye to the hotel in their separate car, parked it, and gone inside the hotel.
They both then approached the State Commission by filing a companyplaint against the Appellant Hotel seeking payment of the value of the car and companypensation for deficiency in service.
50,000 as litigation companyts.
On the night of 01.08.1998, at around 11 p.m., Respondent No.
Consequently, the case came before the Full Bench by way of a Letters Patent Appeal.
2 car owner in respect of the stolen car for Rs.
On facts, Sir Arnold White C.J. and Sankaran Nair J. of the Full Bench found that the defendant had been negligent and allowed the appeal, whereas Wallis J. dissented.
2 herein Complainant No.
2 came out of the hotel at about 1 a.m., he was informed that his vehicle had been driven away by another person.
However, in second appeal, though the Division Bench of the High Court agreed that the defendants were negligent, they differed on whether the terms of the bill of lading excluded liability for 1909 ILR 32 Mad 95.
2 executed a Power of Attorney POA and a letter of subrogation in favour of Respondent No.
2010 1 CPC 319.
1,00,000 to Respondent No.
2002 NCDRC 42.
1 a sum of Rs.
