TEAM CODE: 03

PSDA ACTIVITY
LEGAL RESEARCH AND MOOT COURT
LLB 114

JAIRAJ BEDI … (PLAINTIFF)

V
5 STAR MIRAGE HOTEL ….. (DEFENDANT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 TABLE OF CONTENT

ABBREVIATIONS ……..………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………..

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………..

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………..

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………..

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………….

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………

ii
 ABBREVIATIONS

1. Hon’ble – honourable

2. i.e. – that is

3. SC – Supreme Court

4. Dtd. - dated

5. ICA - Indian Contract Act 1872

6. V – Versus

7. Sec. – Section

8. Pvt. - Private

9. Ltd. - Limited

iii
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

1) TAJ MAHAL HOTEL V UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

2) BOMBAY BRAZZAIRE V MULCHAND AGARWAL
3) KAVITA TEHAN V BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS
4) Dileep Kumar v. Deccan’s Park Pvt Ltd.
5) ULTZON V NICOLLS
6) R. v. Viscount Hertford

BOOKS:

1) AVATAR SINGH – CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

2) RK BANGIA - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
3) RK BANGIA – LAW OF TORT

STATUTES:

1) INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

WEBSITES:

1) Scconline.com
2) Indiankanoon.org
3) SSRN
4) Ipleaders.com

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Jairaj Bedi humbly submits this memorandum for
the suit filed before this Honourable Jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of Civil Procedure
Code.

v
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Mr. Jairaj Bedi a resident of ZELHI, INDIANA along with his wife went for a dinner to a
renowned 5 Star Hotel on 14 February 2024 in his car Folks wagon Volo.
2) Upon reaching he handed over his car and its keys to valet for parking who in return gave
him a ticket and parked the car in the hotel parking. The ticket given to Mr Bedi had a
limitation clause which made the hotel free from responsibility for any loss arising to
vehicle in their possession.
3) After dinner at the time of retrieving the car and by handing back the ticket to the valet
the car was missing from the parking. The plaintiff approached the manager Mr. Nomesh
Kapoor who although assured of prompt investigation but it wasn’t found.
4) On inquiry it was found the car was stolen from the possession of valet parking by a
young boy.
5) However the manager, Mr Kapoor claims the hotel took all reasonable care and were not
being negligent. They should also be free from liability because of liability clause.
6) Hotel also claims they shouldn’t be liable for theft of car since they took all reasonable
care.
7) Thus, Mr. Jairaj Beda took legal action against the hotel for loss of his car.

vi
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) Whether the relationship of bailment is established when Mr. Bedi presented the car
and its keys to the Valet?

2) Whether the Hotel authorities owed a duty of reasonable care of the car in its
premises?

3) Whether the Hotel authorities can be held liable for the loss of the car from the Hotel
premises given for Valet parking?

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) Whether the relationship of bailment is established when Mr. Bedi presented the car and
its keys to the Valet?

According to section 148 of Indian contract act, 1872

A 'bailment' is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon
a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise
disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person
delivering the goods is called the 'bailor'. The person to whom they are delivered is
called the 'bailee'.
Thus, a bailment relationship is established when Mr. Bedi presented his car and keys
to the hotel valet for parking. Here's why:
• Delivery of Possession: Mr. Bedi entrusted his car (tangible personal property)
to the hotel valet (bailee).
• Purpose: The purpose of the delivery was for the valet to park the car (specific
purpose).
• Return Expected: There was an implied understanding that the car would be
returned to Mr. Bedi (bailor) after the purpose was fulfilled (upon retrieval).
Since all three elements of a bailment are present, a bailment relationship is formed
between Mr. Bedi and the Mirage Hotel. This means the hotel assumes a duty of care
for Mr. Bedi's car while it's in their possession

2) Whether the Hotel authorities owed a duty of reasonable care of the car in its premises?

The hotel authorities owed a duty of reasonable care for the plaintiff, Mr. Bedi car while it
was in their possession in their premises. As when the plaintiff handed over the car to the
valet service for parking a contract was formed between them, making the hotel a Bailee and
the responsibility of safekeeping the vehicle fall upon them.

viii
Under this duty of care the hotel was under the responsibility to take reasonable care and
precautions to ensure safety and security of plaintiff car including the safety measures and the
taking steps to prevent theft or damage.

Since the hotel failed in exercising diligent care and Mr. Bedi car was stolen by a young boy
while it was in the hotel premises, the hotel faults in taking reasonable care of bailed goods.
Thus causing a breach, making them liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff.

3) Whether the Hotel authorities can be held liable for the loss of the car from the Hotel
premises given for Valet parking?

Certainly, the hotel Authority is Liable for the loss of Mr. Bedi's car from their premises,
despite it being given for valet - Establishment of Bailment Relationship was formed when
Mr. Bedi handed the car keys to the valet attendant, Negligence was showed by the hotel staff
as they were not able to stop the thief and the car got stolen, Duty of Care (SEC 151) that is
taking reasonable precautions to prevent theft or damage to the vehicle. Once possession of
the vehicle is handed to the hotel staff or valet, there is an implied contractual obligation to
return the vehicle in a safe condition upon the direction of the owner. While the hotel may
have a limitation of liability clause in their valet parking agreement, such clauses cannot
absolve them of liability for their own negligence. In the case of theft of a vehicle given for
valet parking, the hotel cannot claim exemption from liability by contending that it was due
to acts of third parties beyond their control, or that they are protected by owner’s risk clause.
At the end Mr. Bedi is suffering from the loss so he should be compensated by the hotel
authority because Negligence has been flaunted by the hotel authority.

ix
x
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1) Whether the relationship of bailment is established when Mr. Bedi presented the car
and its keys to the Valet?

Our Position: Yes, a bailment relationship was established between Mr. Bedi (bailor) and
Mirage Hotel (bailee) upon Mr. Bedi surrendering his car and keys to the valet for parking.

Bailment is defined in section 148 of Indian contract act, 1872 it states that. A 'bailment' is
the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they
shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to
the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the
'bailor'. The person to whom they are delivered is called the 'bailee'.

ARGUMENTS:

 Delivery of Possession: Mr. Bedi demonstrably delivered possession of his car and
keys to Mr. Dharamraj, the valet attendant acting on behalf of Mirage Hotel. This act
of entrustment is a hallmark of a bailment. [SEC 148 of Indian contract act,1872]

 Purpose and Benefit: Mr. Bedi relinquished control of his car for a specific purpose
– secure parking offered by the hotel. In return, the hotel benefitted by providing a
service that enhances the guest experience. This mutual benefit is another key element
of a bailment.

 Duty of Care: In exchange for the parking service, the hotel assumed a duty of care
for Mr. Bedi's car. Mr. Dharamraj issuance of a parking ticket reinforces this point,
signifying the hotel's acceptance of responsibility for the vehicle. [ SEC 151 of Indian
contract act,1872]

 Standard of Care: While the specific agreement may mention limitations of

liability, it cannot absolve the hotel of all responsibility. The standard of care for a

xi
 hotel valet is that of ordinary care, meaning they must take reasonable precautions to
safeguard the guests' vehicles.

CASE LAWS:

Taj Mahal Hotel vs united India insurance co.ltd

FACTS OF THE CASE

 A guest parked their car at the Taj Mahal Hotel using the valet service.
 The car was subsequently stolen from the hotel premises.
 The guest's insurance company, United India, filed a complaint with the consumer
forum on behalf of the guest

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the guest and their insurance company. Here's a
breakdown of the key points:

Hotel's Liability: The court established that a hotel has an implied contractual obligation to
return a guest's vehicle in a safe condition when valet parking is used. This creates a bailment
situation under the Indian Contract Act.

Disclaimers on Parking Tags: The court held that disclaimers on parking tags attempting to
limit the hotel's liability for negligence are invalid.

xii
 2) Whether the Hotel authorities owed a duty of reasonable care of the car in its premises?

Mr. Jairaj Bedi , the plaintiff got into a contractual agreement with the 5 Star Mirage Hotel
when he agreed to give the possession of his car for the purpose of safeguarding it till he’s in
the hotel along with his wife assuming it shall be returned when he demands for it. Making
the hotel as bailee and Mr Bedi as a bailor.1 As a bailee, the hotel was bound to take
reasonable care of goods bailed to them which would be similar to the care taken by a man of
ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances which is stated in S. 151 of ICA.2

However due to the actions and the incapability of the hotel to perform the reasonable care
required, the goods were in the possession of the bailee, i.e. the hotel were lost and later on
discovered to be stolen by a young boy from the premises.3 These actions prove that the hotel
was unable to perform the duty obligated upon them diligently and with were unable to
exercise due care in protecting the vehicle bailed to them by the plaintiff. In a previous case
of Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Pvt Ltd., where in the the goods bailed by
plaintiff to the appellant (hotel) was stolen from the premises. The Supreme Court in the case
dealing with the issue, what’s the degree of care required to be taken by the hotel? Held that

The specific care required to be taken by the hotel in the respect to the consumer’s car as
prescribed in S 151 of ICA. Since the car was in the possession of the hotel and was stolen
was their premises, the hotel failed to take the due care.4

As the manager Mr Nomesh Kapoor and the staff of the respondent claims they should not be
held liable for the act and theft since they weren’t acting diligently and took reasonable care.
They also give an argument on the valet agreement which contains of limitation of liability
clause.5 This also can’t stand true as the precedent in the above cited case held, the hotel cant
contract out of its obligation and liability under S. 151 of ICA. Thus, the inclusion of the
liability clause doesn’t absolve the hotel from their duty and liability. Moreover this clause is
unseasonal and unfair as it absolve the hotel and curtail them from the liability when they are
at fault and due to their negligence the plaintiff’s car was stolen.
1
S 148 of Indian Contract Act
2
Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygiene Products, AIR 1992 DEL 103
3
Facts of the case (4)
4
Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurers
5
Facts of the case ()

xiii
The plaintiff, Mr Bedi placed his trust in Mirage Hotel when he handed over his car, a
Volkswagen volo to the valet service. This trust wasn’t unwarranted, as guests rightfully
expect that their vehicles will be safely parked and protected from the harm while it’s in the
premises of reputable establishment such as Mirage hotel.

However, on 14th February, the plaintiff trust was broken upon the hotel despite assurance
from valet attendant Mr Dharamraj, and the parking ticket his car was stolen from the hotel’s
parking area. This is clear negligence on the part of the hotel which is inexcusable and shows
a breach of duty of reasonable care. When the loss has been due to the act of the Bailee’s
servant, he would be liable if the servant's act is within the scope of his employment as in this
case the valet attendant Dharamraj who was on duty to take the car in possession and due to
his negligence the car was stolen from the premises of an established by a young boy under
the watch of the security.

One of the contentions raised by the Hotel in Taj Mahal Hotel was that
the Consumer did not pay any charges for valet parking and therefore, the
Hotel was not obligated to ensure the safety of the car. The Court rejected
this contention on the ground that the Contract t Act does not distinguish
between the obligations of a bail or in case of a gratuitous bailment and a
bailment for reward. The Court held that ‘it is irrelevant as to how much
parking fee was paid by the consumer, or whether any parking fee was
paid at all, as the duty of care required to be taken by the hotel will be the
same in all circumstances’. This contention also rules out in this case and
it doesn’t absolve the hotel from their liability.

The State Commission relied upon two decisions of the National Commission in the cases –
Bombay Brazzerie v. Mulchand Agarwal held that laws of bailment apply when a customer
pays to park his car in a parking lot and it is then stolen or damaged. It was noted that the
price paid for food consumed in the hotel would include consideration for a contract of
bailment from the consumer to the hotel. Hence, the State Commission proceeded on the
assumption that the respondent-car owner had paid consideration for the contract and the
hotel would be held liable for damage to the vehicle in the premises of hotel. It’s the
responsibility of the bailee when goods are not duly returned. If by the fault of the bailee the

xiv
goods are not returned, delivered, or tendered at proper time, he’s responsible to the bailor for
any loss, destruction or deterioration of any goods from that time.6

The hotel and the valet service was being negligent in their obligation which caused the loss
to the plaintiff. Negligent has been stated in Tort law where it held, Negligence occurs when
one party owes another party a duty of care, and fails to take reasonable care to avoid causing
damage to that party. There are several factors that need to be satisfied for an individual or a
company to successfully sue for negligence which include Duty of care and Breach of duty
by the defendant. The mirage hotel and its valet owed the plaintiff a duty of care while the
bailed car were in their possession and the damage to Mr Bedi’s car clearly indicate that the
hotel breached their duty.

S 161 of ICA, if by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered
at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of
the goods from that time. Since due to the negligence of the bailee the goods couldn’t be
delivered to the owner, i.e. the plaintiff and the hotel was to be held liable for it.

3) Whether the Hotel authorities can be held liable for the loss of the car from the Hotel
premises given for Valet parking?

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Mr. Jairaj Bedi an Estate Agent in Orion Realities in the city of Zelhi, Indiana took a
visit to a 5-star hotel Mirage, located in Model Town for a dinner with his wife in his
car, Folks wagon Volo. The attendant Mr. Dharamraj provided him with a ticket and
assured that his car would be securely parked in the Hotel’s designated parking area.
Mr. Bedi who was feeling impervious about his car walked inside the hotel to enjoy
dinner with his wife. After having a relishing dinner he walked towards the valet
asking for the car. The attendant took some time and returned empty handed. Mr.
Bedi fossicks his car but it was nowhere to be found.

6
Bombay Brazzerie vs Mulchand Agarwal

xv
 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAR’S LOSS.

When Mr. Bedi handed over the Car Keys to the valet attendant and he received
the ticket for the same. The Hotel authority and Mr. Bedi came under a contract of
Bailment. In the contract of bailment, it is the legal right of the bailor to receive
the goods back in the condition it was bailed no damaged should be caused to the
goods and there should be no third party involvement in between, As mentioned in
SEC 151 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. The car being stolen from the hotel’s
parking lot is breach of duty by the bailee which violates Section 151 of the ICA
1872 as the duty of care was levied on the hotel authority and they showed
negligence on their part, so the HOTEL AUTHORITY IS RESPONSIBLE. In
Support of this, Precedent for the same is R. v. Viscount Hertford,7 (1681) Shower
172 where the bailor's goods are stolen from custody of the bailee, he will be
liable if there has been negligence on his part. Where the plaintiff stayed at a hotel
and his articles were stolen while he was away the hotelier was held liable as the
room was, to his knowledge, in an insecure condition.

3.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF LIABILITY LIMITING CLAUSE

The Hotel Authority can dispute on the grounds of the Liability limiting clause,
but that clause should go through perusal because it vanquishes the motive of
section 23 and section 28 of the Indian Contract act. Section 23 of ICA 1872
shares that how the consideration or object of an agreement should be lawful &
Section 28 states that agreements which restraints the legal proceedings of the
court should be void. So, the liability limiting clause of the hotel authority limiting
hotel’s liability is unreasonable and impugn this provision. Mr. Bedi’s car has
been stolen from the premises of the hotel, it’s the fault of hotel and they are just
refusing that they don’t have any liability on their part, this is obstinate of the
judgment given by the Two bench Council of the supreme court in the case Taj
Mahal Hotel vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.8 on 14 November 2019 in the
realm of Contract laws, the Supreme Court has observed that, in a case of theft of
a vehicle given for valet parking, the hotel cannot claim exemption from liability

7
R. v. Viscount Hertford
8
Taj Mahal Hotel vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd

xvi
 by contending that it was due to acts of third parties beyond their control, or that
they are protected by an 'owner's risk'.

3.4 CONCLUSION

Examining the facts this can clearly be seen that negligence was showed by the
hotel authority which is a clear breach of SEC 151 of the ICA 1872 as there was a
contractual agreement between the 2 parties, so they must follow their duties.
Negligence is being shown as the car was not adequately safeguarded in the
premises of the hotel, so the hotel is culpable for the incident & the hotel is
providing the facility of valet parking to their guests so they have duty to take
reasonable car that the car should not be damaged or get stolen, as they are not
able to do they should be held liable for the theft of Mr. Bedi’s Car & Mr. Bedi
should be compensated for the same.

I REST MY CASE YOUR HONOUR.

xvii
 PRAYER

In the light of the foregoing arguments and evidence presented, the Petitioner respectfully
prays that this Honourable Court find in favour of Mr. Jairaj Bedi, holding the respondents,
Mirage Hotel liable for the loss of his car and award appropriate damages.

xviii
xix