Bathala Giri Babu vs Penubothu Arun

THE present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.2.2014 in Appeal No. 932 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission''). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum'') in Complaint No. 37/2012, whereby the complaint was allowed. The brief facts relevant to this revision are that, on 6.5.2012, Mr. Penabathu Arun, the Petitioner/Complainant and his family members stayed in Hotel Udayee International, Tirupathi - -the OP -1 Bathala Giri Babu, is Managing Director and OP -2 Rallapati Rambabu is General Manager of that hotel.

A theft took place in early hours of 7.5.2012 and his bag containing cash of Rs. 51,700 and some jewellery including ''Mangalasutra'' was missing. Immediately it was informed to the hotel management and after a search, an empty bag was found on the terrace of a different building. The Police was also informed and the Complainant filed a criminal complaint as a registered No., Cr. No. 210/2012. There were CCTV cameras, the room glass windows were not secured and the theft was committed by entry of miscreants. Alleging it as a deficiency in service and negligence by the OPs; the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum, for compensation of Rs. 3,15,700 along with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 25,000 towards travelling charges and Rs. 2,00,000 for mental agony and costs of Rs. 10,000. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e. 18.5.2012, till the date of realization, together with compensation of Rs. 5,000 and costs of Rs. 2,000.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District forum the OP preferred and Appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed.

HENCE , the OP filed this Revision Petition. We have heard the Counsel for the OP/Petitioner on admission hearing. There is a short delay of 3 days in filing his revision petition. We have perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner and hereby condone this delay. The Counsel vehemently argued that the Complaint is not maintainable as it was filed in personal capacity; it was not filed against Hotel Udayee International. Also contended that the Complainant should have kept the valuables and cash with the front office in the safe deposit locker or with the management. Hence, the theft occurred due to his negligence and at his risk, for which the OPs are not liable. The Counsel also submitted that the Complaint was filed before the District Forum within 10 days of cause of action hence it is an immature one. We have perused the order of the State Commission which clearly observed that: "The Counsel for the Complainant relied on Ex. M.O.I, compact disk, showing the thief loitered the premises and the Counsel for the OPs objected for receiving the same as evidence and contended that there is no evidence that it was obtained from Police or from the Court and it cannot be received as evidence as it may be generated. If the contention of the OPs that no CCTV camera is arranged is true, that itself amounts to deficiency in service because as per the revised guidelines for approval of guest houses issued in the month of December, 2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism, H&R Division, states that the installation of CCTV in public areas with data backup is mandatory. The OPs did not deny that the police collected the CCTV footage in the concerned criminal case from their hotel and therefore an inference is drawn that there was CCTV camera and they did not choose to file the same as evidence and as such adverse inference is drawn against them. On the other hand, the Complainant produced compact disc by obtaining the same from the Police and marked as Ex. M.O.I which reveals that a person was loitering during the night time in and around the premises of the hotel and the same supports the case of the Complainants that theft had taken place."

Similar view dovetails from the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ms. Sumathi Devi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India and Others, : III (2004) SLT 227 : II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 AIR 2368, wherein a passenger travelling in AC compartment of train lost her belongings due to theft. The management cannot totally absolve the liability as railways have to provide necessary protection. As noted from the record, it is clear that OPs -1 and 2 are in administrative capacity of Hotel Udayee International. Even though the complaint is filed in personal capacity, it will not take away the right of consumer on such technicality. The Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent act to assist the Consumers from the exploitation. Hence, in our view the complaint is maintainable. Thus, the safety is a primary duty of the hotel authorities. In the instant case the CCTVs footings showed the incoming and outgoing of unknown persons through the window of complainant''s room, as the glass window was not properly secured by locks. Not providing secured locking system for window amounts to deficiency in service. Most of the hotels charge the customers exorbitantly, without providing proper facilities. It is just exploitation of tourists. We are of considered view that the Petitioner is deficient and negligent in providing services to the Complainant. Hence, we do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the orders passed by both the Fora below and same are upheld. Accordingly, we dismiss the present Revision Petition.