The hotel's disclaimer of responsibility must be brought to the notice of the consumer, and negligence leading to the loss of property constitutes deficiency in service.

Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Member—The present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act by Mr. Atul Virmani against M/s. Hotel Hayat Regency, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that he came to Delhi along with his Maruti Gypsy white colour car bearing registration No. UP-07-3-9149 which he had earlier purchased from M/s. Rohan Motors, Dehradun for Rs. 2,86,395.10 p. According to the complainant he got installed accessories worth Rs. 50,000/- in the said vehicle and the vehicle was insured third party but theft was not included in the policy. The complainant came to Delhi for studies and was temporarily staying At E-89, ground floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that on 18.9.1996 at about 11.15 p.m. he visited the O.P. hotel after paying a fee of Rs. 900/- vide Receipt No. 070708 dated 18.9.1996. This fee included the entrance fee as well as charges for safe parking of the vehicle. It is stated that on arrival at the hotel, the representative of the O.P. demanded the keys of the vehicle for parking the vehicle at the parking lot in safe custody. Hence the complainant delivered the possession of the vehicle to the representative of the O.P., who drove the car to the parking lot. The representative of the O.P. issued a Docket as receipt for delivery of the vehicle to the complainant which he had to produce while checking out of the hotel. It is further stated that on production of the said Docket, the vehicle of the complainant was to be brought at the place where it has been taken from the complainant. The complainant checked out of the Hotel at 1.40 a.m. on 19.9.1996 and presented the Docket to the representative of the O.P. who had keys of the vehicle. However, the representative of the O.P. informed the complainant after half an hour, that the car of the complainant is missing from the hotel parking place. The Hotel staff also, informed that vehicle of the complainant was permitted to go from the parking place between 12.20 a.m. to 12.40 a.m. on 19.9.1996 and there is an entry in the register regarding the checking in and checking out of the vehicle. The complainant himself went to the hotel parking place but did not find his vehicle. The hotel staff called the police and a report was dictated by the staff of the O.P. and the complainant signed it. According to the complainant the vehicle also contained Rs. 2,500/- in cash, registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance paper and driving licence of the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that he had delivered the vehicle to the O.P.’s staff with the assurance that the said vehicle shall be delivered back to the complainant when he checks out from the hotel. The consideration for said service was included in the entrance fee. However, the O.P. had not taken any care of the vehicle and negligently permitted the vehicle to go without production of Docket ticket of the vehicle. It is also alleged that bailment was created under Chapter IX of the Contract Act and the O.P. is bound to return the vehicle or pay the damages. The complainant went back to Dehradun and sent a request to various authorities to intervene in the matter but nothing was done. The O.P. assured the complainant that payment of adequate damages were be done but did not do so. Hence the complainant served a legal notice to the O.P. through his Counsel on 28.1.1997 and demanded Rs. 5,02,895/- as cost of the vehicle, interest and damages. However, the O.P. in reply to the notice disclaimed its liability to pay any amount as damages. In reply to the notice, O.P. stated that as per terms printed on the back of the Docket, O.P. was not liable for the safe custody of the vehicle. Unable to get any relief, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging gross negligence of service on the part of O.P. who failed to keep the vehicle in safe custody and failed to return and deliver the car to the complainant. The complainan