Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President &
Mr. Desh Bandhu, Member
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.—Appellants
versus
ARUN KUMAR GUMBAR & ORS.—Respondents
Case Nos. 200 & 622 of 1995 — Decided on 20.1.1997
Held: It is sufficient to observe that the facts constitute bailmen1 and the person responsible for the management of the parking area is liable to make good the loss. The decisions relied on by Mr. Dwivedi are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As stated earlier the question of bailment is required to be decided in each case arising for consideration. We do not find any proposition of general and universal application laid down in the aforesaid decisions to warrant the conclusion that parking of the car in such circumstances on payment of prescribed consideration cannot amount to bailment. We further find merit in the contention of Mr. Mehra that even if it is assumed that there was no bailment the contractor cannot avoid liability because of the breach of contract of service entered into with the complainant. It is not disputed that the contractor issued a token as receipt for parking of the car. It is further not disputed that he had charged the prescribed fee of Rs. 5/-. In the printed token the following words appear:
"No responsibility of items such as radio stereo watch stepney. etc."
By necessary implication the contractor assumed responsibility for safety of the vehicle as distinguished from the aforesaid accessories. A reading of the Licence Agreement dated 14-10-1992 entered into between the Airport Authority and the Licensee M/s. Mahesh Enterprises shows that for running the parking area the licence fee payable by the licensee was of a sizable amount of Rs. 2.30.000/- per month for the first year and Rs. 2.53.000/- per month for the second year. This gives a fairly good idea of the number of vehicles parked and collection of parking fee from each vehicle. In other words it cannot be said that the fee being charged was a nominal one. (Para 10)
We also find force in contention of Mr. Mehra that unless the contractor were held responsible for loss of the vehicle owing to his negligence or failure to take reasonable care as a man of ordinary prudence it would lead to an impossible situation. Need for the safe parking area can never be over-emphasized. If the persons responsible for running authorised parking areas are not held responsible one wonders how can life go on in bigger cities and Metropolitan areas. Use of the vehicle has become a necessary part of every day life and consequently there is corresponding need for their safe keeping during the temporary absence of the user of the vehicle. (Para 11)
The entire management of running the parking area has been handed over under the Agreement by the Airport Authority to the Licensee on the terms and conditions appearing in the Agreement. The licensee had assumed responsibility for the safety of the vehicles which were parked on payment of prescribed charges. Even if the Airport Authority is made to satisfy the claims they would be entitled to recover the same from the licensee by virtue of Clause 9 of the Licence Agreement reproduced as above. This would lead to multiplicity of proceedings which is against public policy. We are therefore of the view that the Airport Authority was not liable to satisfy the claim. Finding to the contrary in the impugned order is therefore set aside.
(Para 12)
Result: Appeal No. A-200/95 allowed & Appeal No. A-622/95 dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
The question of bailment is required .to be decided on facts of each individual case.
Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — Both the appeals mentioned in the above title are directed against the order of the District Forum- II dated 22.3.95. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the complainant Mr. Arun Kumar Gumbar, Director of M/s. Aakriti Plastics Products Private Limited, New Delhi went to Indira Gandhi International Airport to see off his brother on 5.8.93. He parked his Maruti AC Car No. DNH-2037 in the authorised parking area for which the employee of M/s. Mahesh Enterprises, who manages the parking issued receipt No. 465459 after charging Rs. 5/-. When the complainant returned after seeing off his brother, he found the car missing. He lodged a report being F.I.R. No. 335 at P.S. Indira Gandhi International Airport. A message was flashed to all S.Ps through out the country by the police. Inspite of efforts, the car could not be traced. Unfortunately, the car was not covered by insurance at the time of its loss. The complainant i.e. Mr. Arun Kumar Gumbar and aforesaid Company filed a complaint impleading Indira Gandhi International Airport Authority of India, hereinafter referred to as the Airport Authority, as Opposite Party I and Mahesh Enterprises as Opposite Party II, claiming Rs. 1,95,852.11 being the price of a new Maruti AC Car, besides Rs. 40,000/- on account of compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant and the expenditure incurred for availing for other mode of transport in addition to Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony suffered by complainant-I. The complainant also claimed interest @ 24% on the amount of compensation claimed by him.
2. Opposite Party II Mahesh Enterprises failed to appear or file a reply, the complaint was, however, contested by Opposite Party I, International Airport Authority of India. In the written statement filed by Opposite Party 1, it was stated that the complainant did not hire the services of the contesting respondent and at no stage was there a privity of contract between the complainant and the said respondent. It was further pleaded that the Airport Authority had entered into an Agreement with Mahesh Enterprises vide Licence Agreement dated 14.10.92 and under the terms of the said licence, the Airport Authority was not responsible for deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the said licencee. It was further pointed out that the parking charges were collected by the said licencee and responsibility for the loss, if any, was that of the said respondent. A copy of the agreement entered into between the Airport Authority and the said licencee was filed with the written statement.
3. On behalf of the complainant, Mr. Arun Kumar Gumbar filed his affidavit as well as the token issued by the employee of respondent No. II regarding the parking of the car, invoice whereby the car was purchased from M/s. Aganall Traders Limited on 14.9.89 for Rs. 1,36,695/-, copy of the registration book and price of new Maruti AC car as on 17.9.93 being Rs. 1,95,858.11. On behalf of the contesting respondent, affidavit of Ms. Suman Jain, Manager Law, of the International Airport Authority of India was filed.
4. The District Forum-II held, (i) that Opposite Party I, Airport Authority was as much responsible for taking care of the vehicle entrusted to its licensee as the licensee himself, (ii) That it would be fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case of fix the price of the vehicle as Rs. 1,35,972/-; (iii) That no evidence having been led, the complainants were not entitled to compensation on account of expenditure made on alternative transport. Rs. 5,000/- was allowed on account of mental agony. Both the parties were jointly and severally directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days failing which the amount was to carry 24% per annum interest till the date of payment.
5. Aggrieved by the order, both the opposite parties have preferred these separate appeals. We have heard Mr. Y.K. Kapoor, Advocate for the Airport Authority, Mr. Bipin K. Dw
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
