Mysore Dasara Exhibition Authority vs S B Manikya Raju

THE complainant was in possession of an Ambassador car which he had purchased for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000. The same was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The vehicle was kept on 24.10.1999 at the parking place belonging to the Mysore Dasara Exhibition Authority.

IT is contended that during the period of Mysore Dasara Exhibition the petitioner, the Mysore Dasara Exhibition Authority, auctioned space for parking vehicles. The respondent No. 2, Y.V. Richards, was the highest bidder. For parking the vehicle the complainant was required to pay Rs. 5 as car parking charges. After the visit of the exhibition the car was not found, as the respondent replied that they are not responsible for the fate of the car, complaint (Dispute No. 215 of 1999) was filed before the District Consumer Forum at Mysore by the respondent No. 1 wherein he has prayed that he has sustained loss of Rs. 1,05,000 being the cost of the car and Rs. 35,000 spent by him for repairing the same. It was prayed that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 be directed to pay the said amount with interest. After appreciating the evidence the District Forum by order dated 13.1.2001 allowed the complaint by holding that visitors to the exhibition were required to purchase entry tickets while entering the premises of the exhibition where stalls were erected for entertainment, amusement of visitors and for commercial purpose. The purchasing of tickets would mean that entry was not free and persons who purchased the tickets would be consumers who have hired the services for consideration. Thus the petitioner was required to protect the property of visitors while they were in the premises of the petitioner. Petitioner has let out the vehicle stand on contract to the respondent No. 2, who was the highest bidder, on the basis of the terms and conditions, as are required to safe custody of the vehicles parked therein. It, therefore, held that petitioner as well as the contractor were jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 60,000 as costs of the car along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The District Forum directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to pay the complainant Rs. 60,000 as cost of car along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 24th October, 1999 till the date of payment with costs of Rs. 750 plus charges for notice.

AGAINST that order the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 111 of 2001 before the Karnataka State Commission. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 7th November, 2002. Hence, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Findings : IT is proved on record that the complainant has parked his car in the parking lot on 24.10.1999 which was owned by the petitioner. That parking lot was hired by the respondent No. 2. With regard to hiring agreement, the District Forum referred to the relevant terms and conditions which are as under:

''1. Bidder/Contractor shall charge the vehicles for parking only as under: (a) Cycle Re. 1 (b) Scooter/two - wheeler Rs. 2 (c) Car Rs. 5 (d) Tempo Rs. 10 (e) Bus/Lorry Rs. 25

Contract period is from 10.10.1999 to 12.12.1999 only. 3. Contractor should put up fence around the parking area.

AUTHORITY shall provide lighting for parking area, but electricity charges should be paid by the contractor.

PUBLIC should park the vehicles only in the specified area. Token should be given to every vehicle for having paid the charges. AFTER giving the token, the contractor shall be fully responsible for the safety of the vehicle. CONTRACTOR should ensure that no damage/dents are caused to the vehicle during the parking. The contractor and his staff should behave smoothly with the public and should not give room for galata. IN case of theft of any vehicle the Contractor is fully responsible. THIS lease should not be transferable. The staff for the parking area should be employed by the contractor himself at his cost. THE contractor has to abide by the rules and regulations and terms imposed by the Authority and should execute the same on a stamp paper of Rs. 100.''

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has entered into a hiring agreement with the respondent No. 2, and, therefore, if there is any fault in not safeguarding the vehicle, it is that of respondent No. 2 and for that fault the petitioner cannot be held liable.

FOR this purpose, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by this Commission in Mahesh Enterprises v. Arun Kumar Gumber & Ors., Revision Petition No. 250 of 1997 wherein the complainant had parked his vehicle, a Maruti car, in the authorized parking area at Indira Gandhi International Airport. Rs. 10 was charged as parking charges. The car was stolen and a complaint was filed. In that set of circumstances, the Commission observed that the State Commission was legally right in holding that the facts and the circumstances would constitute bailment and the person responsible for the management of the parking area was liable to make good the loss, and the Airport Authority was not liable on the basis of the agreement because the licensee had assumed the responsibility for the safety of vehicles which were parked on the payment of prescribed charges. In such cases, even if the Airport Authority was made to satisfy the claim they would be entitled to recover the same from the licensee by virtue of the terms of the contract.

IN the present case, the same would be the position. From the terms and conditions of the contract the contractor was required to ensure that no damages are caused to the vehicle kept in the parking plot and in the case of theft the contractor would be fully responsible. It is also specifically provided that the staff for the parking area should be employed by the contractor himself at his cost. Further, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the respondent Nos. 2 was acting on behalf of the petitioner or was their agent in any manner. There is no bailment of car to the petitioner, nor the possession of the car was given to the petitioner. Further, the contract was given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 so that traffic can be regulated in a parking zone. In this view of the matter, in our view, the petitioner would not be liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The sole liability rests with the respondent No. 2, Contractor. By a contract he was permitted to operate the parking lot and was in his charge throughout. He has undertaken to pay for the loss suffered by the consumer.

FURTHER , the vehicle was insured, and by this time, it can be presumed that the insurance claim must have been settled, and, therefore, before executing the order, the District Forum would verify from the complainant whether any amount is received from the Insurance Company, if the claim is settled. If the amount is received, the respondent No. 2, will be liable to reimburse only the balance amount, if any. For this purpose, complainant would file necessary affidavit.

IN the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed accordingly. It is held that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount by way of compensation to the complainant and the sole liability is that of respondent No. 2, the contractor. There shall be no order as to costs.