• Posted by CERC India
  • Posted in

SC holds Taj hotel liable for vehicle stolen from parking


A car given for valet parking by Sapan Dhawan at the Taj Hotel, Delhi was stolen. Insurance claim of Rs. 2.8 lakhs was paid to him by United India Insurance. (Grahak Sathi – June-July 2018). In a complaint filed by the insurance company and Sapan, the State Commission directed the hotel to reimburse United India Rs. 2.8 lakhs with 12% interest and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. It also ordered Taj to pay Rs. 1 lakh to Sapan as compensation for harassment. Taj appealed to the National Commission which upheld the State Commission’s order with reduced interest of 9%. Taj then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The SC said that when the hotel actively undertakes to park the vehicle for the owner, it is liable to return the vehicle in the condition in which it was given, irrespective of the parking tag clearly stating that it would be at the guest’s ‘own risk’.


The Supreme court upheld the order of National Commission directing Taj Mahal Hotel to pay compensation of Rs. 2.8 lakhs for the Maruti Zen car stolen in 1998 from its parking area and held that there was negligence on the part of the hotel management and deficiency in service.

Point of law

A hotel would be liable to return the vehicle in the condition in which it was given for parking even though the parking tag states that it would be ‘at owner’s risk’.

[Source: The order of the Supreme Court of India dated 14 November, 2019 on Civil Appeal No. 8611 of 2019]

Did you know?

If a hospital fails to discharge its duties through doctors engaged or empanelled by it, it is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the doctors. This was observed by the Supreme Court while upholding an NCDRC order, where it awarded Rs. 76 lakhs as compensation to a boy and his mother. The hospital was held vicariously liable for medical negligence of doctors who failed to carry out the mandatory check-up of a pre-term baby, which led to his total blindness.

Hospital directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs for wrong diagnosis


Anjana Luhar had operation for piles in July 2008 at Panchshil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The biopsy report showed diagnosis of ‘Squamous Papiloma’ with no evidence of malignancy shown in the report. Afterwards, Anjana was in constant pain and had recurring fever. She also developed a small phunsi in front of the abdomen. She was referred to Dr. Priyen Shah of Pukhraj hospital.

Report of the biopsy of the phunsi done then in Sept 2009 confirmed cancer. The patient was referred to MP Shah Cancer Hospital for further treatment. Doctors from MP Shah Cancer hospital re-examined both biopsy reports. They diagnosed it as Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Anjana was in the last stage of cancer. Due to the earlier wrong report, she was deprived of proper medicine, treatment and diagnosis. She died in December 2009 and is survived by three children.

Her husband Sahdev Luhar approached CERS for redressal. CERS filed a complaint in the Forum for medical negligence seeking compensation for negligence and for mental harassment and costs.


The Forum directed the opponents to pay Rs. 5 lakhs with 8% interest as compensation. It also awarded payment of Rs. 15,000 for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 5,000 towards legal costs within 30 days.

Point of law

If a patient is deprived of medicines and treatment and dies as a consequence of wrong diagnosis, she is entitled to compensation from the treating doctor/hospital.

[Source: The order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) dated 30 November 2019 on Complaint No. 153/2012]

Blog Attachment
Subscribe to Newsletter
SIGN UP for the Newsletter.
Exclusive from Consumer Education and Research Centre!
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
"A placerat mauris placerat et penatibus porta aliquet sed dapibus, pulvinar urna cum aliquet arcu lectus sed tortor aliquet sed dapibus."
John Doe, Astronomer
Bubble Company Inc. © 2011-2014