4 min readNew DelhiJun 11, 2026 02:30 PM IST
First published on: Jun 11, 2026 at 02:30 PM IST
The district consumer commission in Hyderabad has directed a Secunderabad-based restobar to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation and Rs 15,000 costs to a customer whose car was badly damaged while in the custody of its valet parking service, holding the establishment responsible for failing to safeguard the vehicle entrusted in its care.
A bench comprising B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (president) and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, noted that the restobar and its staff had acted negligently in safeguarding the complainant’s vehicle, which was sent for valet parking.
“We are of the considered view that the liability of the opposite party No. 1 (restobar) is that of the bailee for the complainant’s vehicle that is handed over to them for valet parking. Hence, the complainant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1,” the bench held in its order dated May 19.
Car damaged during parking
- According to the complaint, the complainant visited Urban Restobar and Lounge in Sainikpuri on October 14, 2023, along with friends.
- After arriving, he handed over his car to the valet parking staff employed by the restobar.
- The complainant stated that the vehicle was in good condition when it was entrusted to the valet attendant. He and his friends spent about three hours at the establishment and paid Rs 2,243 for food and drinks.
- When he sought the return of his vehicle, the parking attendants allegedly failed to produce it for around 40 to 45 minutes.
- On reaching the parking area himself, he found the car damaged. He was informed that the vehicle had been hit by a parking attendant while being moved.
- The complainant later approached the police and, after a court direction, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the matter.
- In the meantime, the complainant issued a legal notice to the restobar.
- He alleged that after issuance of the legal notice, the restobar admitted their mistake and agreed to a settlement, but later denied to pay the compensation.
- The restobar denied liability and argued that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
- It also contended that the compensation claimed was arbitrary and that the complaint was frivolous.
Restobar held liable
The commission found that the documentary evidence, including the valet parking slip, photographs of the damaged vehicle, and WhatsApp communications, established that the car was damaged while in the custody of the restobar.
“It is also established that the opposite party No. 1 has not exercised any prudent care for the safety of the vehicle that has been handed over for valet parking before going into the restobar,” the commission added further.
It noted that the restobar, except for general denial of the averments made in the complaint, could not submit rebuttal evidence to the documentary proof submitted by the complainant.
The commission, therefore, held that the restobar had failed to disprove the prima facie case of negligence and deficiency in service on its part.
It also rejected the restobar’s contention that the complainant wasn’t a consumer.
“The payment to opposite party No. 1 (restobar) reflecting the in the bank statement proves that the complainant has paid consideration to the opposite party No. 1 to avail their service (admittedly, the opposite party No. 1 offers food & drinks), hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant is a consumer and the said objection holds no good and stands rejected,” the order read.
The commission referred to WhatsApp communications showing that the restobar had earlier expressed willingness to settle the dispute for Rs 3 lakh and that the complainant had agreed to the amount.
Considering this, it held that compensation of Rs 3 lakh would be just and reasonable.
The commission found evidence, including the valet parking slip, photos of the vehicle and messages, which showed that the car was damaged while it was with the restobar. (AI-generated image) 
Share
