SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 25567

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Beyond Coffee Shop – Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. Ad Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
SC/36/A/117/2015



BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONsUMER DISPUTES REDRESSA cOMMISSION:HYDERABAD FA NO.117/2015 AGAINST Cc No.331/2012 ON THHE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II,HYDERABAD.

Between:

Beyond Coffee Shop, Rep. by its Proprietor P.Vivekananda Rao, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -33.

(as per complaint).

Beyond Coffee Shop Proprietor: M/s.Gayatri Sri Hospitalities Private Limited Represented by its Director Mr.B.Sudheer, Road No.36 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 33.

... Appellant/

Opposite party And

1.M/s.Ad.Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Executive Director Mr.Syed Musuraff Mehdi, S/o.Late Mr.S.Y.Nawab, aged about

35 years, Occupation: business, R/o.Plot No.181/A, Road No. 12, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Limited, represented by its Manager (Claims) Sri Jayanth Roy, S/o.D.K. Roy Aged about 51 years, 4th Floor, Block A, My Home Tycoon, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16. Respondents/

Complainants Counsel for the Appellant Mr.M.R.B.Manikandan Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Katta Laxmi Prasad.

cORAM: Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.

And Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.

Order:

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/oppositep arty against the order passed in C.C.No.331/2012 dated 4.6.2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Ror the sake of convenience, the parties are relerred to as arrayea & n the complaint. ( Appellant is the opposite party and respondents 1 2 are complainants 1 & 2).

3. The brief facts as stated in the complaint:

Complainant no.1 is the owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing no.AP 9 BP 5200 and the complainant no.2 is the insurer of the said car. The complainant of attorney no.1 is represented by the complainant no.2 as a special power holder. Opposite party is a proprietary concern and rep. by its Proprietor and engaged in the hotel business.

On 13.8.2010 at about 2.30 p.m., nephew of Syed Mushref Mehdi

Executive Director of complainant no.1 company went to the opposite party restaurant along with his friends and handed over the vehicle to the valet for parking and he was issued a token for the same. When he came out after 45 minutes he was informed by the valet that one person claiming to be friend of his asked for the car keys and they have handed over the car keys without demanding for token and the said unknown person drove away the car. Two days after the search for the vehicle, Executive Director of the complainant no.1 lodged a police complaint with Jubilee Hills Police Station vide FIR No.351/2010 dt.16.8.2010. The said vehicle was recovered by the police in accidental condition and the vehicle was entrusted to M/s.Varun Motors (P) Ltd. for carrying out the repairs and a sum of Rs.3,02,411/- was incurred towards repair charges. The opposite party also informed about the theft of the car to the complainant no.2. The complainant no.2 being insurer of the vehicle settled the claim of the complainant no.1 as per terms and conditions of the policy. After settlement of the claim, the complainant no.2 issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to pay a sum of Rs.3,02,411/-

towards the loss incurred in respect of Maruti Swift Car for which reply legal notice was given denying their liability stating that the valet parking is a complementary service and they are not responsible for theft, loss or damage to the vehicles. It is submitted that due to sheer negligence of the opposite party staff, the vehicle was stolen and taken out by some unauthorized person and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and it cannot shirk the responsibility of the safety of the car. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,02,411/- with interest @

12% p.a. to the complainant no.2 and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and costs.

The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations made in

4.

the com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top