VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff in OS 1065/92 who is aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit for recovery of money has preferred the above appeal. ( 2 ) THE suit for recovery of money on account of damage caused to his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. VAO 4117 was'filed. It appears that on invitation extended to him by the South Kanara district Poultry Farmers Cooperative Society who had organised a poultry feed conference at hotel Windsor Manor on 22. 7,1989, the appellant participated and had gone to the hotel in his Maruti van mentioned above. The conference was between 12-30 and 1-30 and when the appellant came out to found mat a dried up and dead tree in the compound fell on his van ana causing extensive damages. The appellant lodged a complaint with the hotel authorities under ex. P. 3 and also got the police complaint Ex. P. 4. Under Ex. P. 11, he called upon the respondent to settle the claim; as there was no response after giving a legal notice, the present suit has been filed. ( 3 ) IT was contended by the defendant that the vehicle parked inside the hotel Windsor Manor is purely on owner's risk. In fact the appellant had parked his vehicle at no parking zone and the damage suffered by the appellant is due to the Act of God. On the said pleading, the Trial Court has framed as many as 16 issues. The appellant examined himself as PW. 1 and had Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 marked. On behalf of the respondent, Exs. P. 1 was marked and DW. 1 was examined. Answering the issue apainst the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. ( 4 ) IT is contended that DW. 1 has confirmed the parking of the vehicle at a place which is meant for parking the vehicle. It was also admitted that there was Guards patrolling the parking zone. The finding that the plaintiff was not the invitee to the hotel is not correct. Such a question was not raised. The burden is on the respondent to prove that it was an act of God. The evidence of horticulture Supervisor should have been called for and produced by the defendant. The finding that the plaintiff was not the invitee to the hotel is not correct. Such a question was not raised. The burden is on the respondent to prove that it was an act of God. The evidence of horticulture Supervisor should have been called for and produced by the defendant. The fact that the appellant would be entitled to claim damages from the insurance company, does not deprive the plaintiff to claim actual damages, as insurance will not cover the full damages. ( 5 ) HEARD the respective counsel ( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed upon the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs SUSHILA DEVI , which is to the following effect: "the Division Bench has found that the tree in question was a dead tree. It had no bark, foliage or butt. The Division Bench has upheld the Trial Judge's finding that the Horticulture department of the Corporation should have carried out periodical inspections of the trees and should have taken safety precautions to see that the road was safe for its users and such adjoining trees as were dried and dead and/or had projecting branches which could prove to be dangerous to the passerby were removed. This finding is based on evidence. The law is well settled that if there is a tree standing on the defendant's land which is dried or dead and for that reason may fall and the defect is one which is either known or should have been known to the defendant, then the defendant is liable for any injury caused by the fall of the tree. Moreso when it is not the defence of the Municipal Corporation that vis major or an act of God such as a storm, tempest, lightening or extraordinary heavy rain had occurred causing the fall of the branch of the tree and that therefore the Corporation was not liable. " in M. C. MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA, the following passage it relied upon. "it is undoubtedly true that chlorine gas is dangerous to the life and health of the community and if it escapes either from the storage tanks or from the filled cylinders or from any other point in the course of production, it is likely to affect the health and well being of the workmen and the people living in the vicinity. There can be no doubt, particularly having regard to the opinion of various committees that the possibility of hazard or risk to the community is considerably minimised and there is now no appreciable risk of danger to the community if the caustic chlorine plant is allowed to be restarted. The interests of the workmen cannot also be ignored while deciding this delicate and complex question. It could not be disputed that the effect of permanently closing down the caustic chlorine plant would be to throw about 4000 workmen out of employment and that such closure would lead to their utter impoverishment. The Delhi Water Supply undertaking which gets its supply of chlerine would also have to find alternative sources of supply and it was common ground between the parties that such sources may be quite distant from delhi. The production of down stream products would also be seriously affected resulting to some extent in short supply of these products. These various considerations on both sides have to be weighed and balanced and a decision has to be made as to on which side the considerations preponderate and tilt the balance. It is none too easy task, for the decision either way may entail serious consequences. "the DICTUM IN WILLIAM vs LINNITT is relied upon, which is as follows:"on Feb. 15,1949, at about 9 p. m. the plaintiff who was returning home in his motor car, stopped at the defendant's inn (admittedly a common inn), to reach which the plaintiff had to pass his own house, and, having placed his motorcar in the car park, he had drinks with friends at the inn. On leaving the an hour later, he found that his car had been stolen. The car park consisted of an area in front of and contiguous to the inn, with a sign bearing the name of the hotel on one side and the following notice:" Car park. Patrons only. Vehicles are admitted to this parking place on condition that the proprietor shall not be lable for loss of or damage to (a) any vehicle (b) anything in or on or about any vehicle, however such loss or damage may be caused, R. W. L. Proprietor," In an action by the plaintiff agains the proprietor of the inn for damages for the loss of the car. (i) In an action against an innkeeper for damages forthe loss of goods of a guest the owner of the goods must grove that at the time of the loss he was a "traveller. (ii) although the plaintiff was residing in the immediate neighbourhood of the inn and visited it merely to take a drink, he was, none the less, a "traveller" for the purpose at establishing the defendant's liability as an innkeeper at common law (iii) the car park being contiguous to the inn and one in which a guest with a car was customarily invited too leave on there being no evidence that any other accommodation for car was provided by the inn, and it being part of the defendant's normal business to provide accommodation for the cars of guests, the car park was within the "hospitium" of the inn. (iv) Denning, L. J. , dissentient, the notice exhibited in the car park did not relieve the defendant of his liability, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover" ( 7 ) THESE decisions no doubt go to show that damage is payable in respect of the damage caused to the Maruti van which was parked in the hotel. Apart from the evidence, it is to be seen whether the petitioner is an invitee at the behest of the hotel management to burden the hotel management with the liability of paying damage to the car. The negligence has been proved. Under Section 101 of the evidence Act, whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right, or liability, dependant on the existence of facts which he asserts much prove those facts exist. The Trial Court gave a finding that the plaintiff has not placed any documentary material to show that he had parked his vehicle at the parting zone. The mere omission of DW. 1 to prevent the plaintiff from parking in a non parking area does not authorise the plaintiff to park anywhere. Therefore dw. 1's evidence was rightly rejected. The faling of the tree on the car is an act which is not at all foresee, by The defendant. The mere omission of DW. 1 to prevent the plaintiff from parking in a non parking area does not authorise the plaintiff to park anywhere. Therefore dw. 1's evidence was rightly rejected. The faling of the tree on the car is an act which is not at all foresee, by The defendant. To prove that there is negligence on the park of the defendant, the plaintiff has to establish; (a) that the defendent was on duty to take care towards the plaintiff to avoid the damage complained of; (b) that there was a breach of that duty on the pan of the defendant; and (c) that the plaintiff has suffered actual damages and the breach was a direct and proximate cause of the damage complained of. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has not discharged the above burden passed upon him. It is equally not the duty of the defendant to take reasonable care of the plaintiff's vehicle unless otherwise the defendant assures by way of contract either oral or written. In any event, the position would have been different, if the plaintiff was the invitee to the hotel or gone to the hotel to avail the facilities granted by the hotel directly to the customer, namely, the plaintiff. The bare licensee is a person who is gratituously allowed by occupier of the land to "use a way to visit the conference. It is also not in evidence that parking was done by the hotel parking man by taking the car from the plaintiff when he entered the hotel premises. If that be the case, one can understand that the liability can be fastened to the hotel management variously. In this case, two things are against the plaintiff - one is parking in any park area and another is he was invited at the instance cf another organisation which is not in the picture at all. ( 8 ) THE findings rendered by the Court below as above does not require reconsideration and does not car for interference by this court. ( 9 ) IN this view, holding that there is no merit, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .