In Brief
Taj Mahal Hotel challenged an insurance company's consumer complaint regarding theft of a guest's car during valet parking. The Supreme Court held that an insurer can sue as a subrogee (stepping into the guest's shoes) alongside the original owner. The hotel is liable under bailment law: when a guest hands over a vehicle for valet parking, a bailment relationship forms—even if the service is complimentary. The Court rejected strict liability and instead applied a negligence rule: the hotel must explain why it failed to return the car or face liability. The hotel cannot escape liability by blaming third parties or invoking owner's risk clauses. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the hotel's liability.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.