|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether
you go to a movie theatre or a shopping mall, railway station or the airport, you have to pay a steep fee for the facility of parking your vehicle. Yet, if the vehicle gets damaged or stolen from a parking lot, those in charge of it come up with all kinds of excuses to escape their liability. Nowhere is the parking fee as exorbitant as the airports. Yet, in the case of Mahesh Enterprises vs Arun Kumar Gamber, the airport authority as well as the parking lot contractor at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport argued that they could not be held responsible for the theft of a vehicle from the parking lot. The apex court, however, disagreed and asked the parking contractor—Mahesh Enterprises—to pay Rs 90,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent calculated from the day of the theft. This positive order was a welcome departure from the stand taken by the highest court in the country in two earlier cases. In the cases of Rohini Group of Theatres vs V.Goplakrishnan and the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, vs S.Alagraj, the commission had rejected the plea for compensation from a cycle owner and a two-wheeler owner, respectively. The apex court’s view at that time was that parking lot contractors who collected a nominal fee were only providing parking space and were not undertaking to ensure the safety of the vehicle. In both the cases, the consumers had lost their vehicles left in the care of the parking lot attendants. Fortunately, the commission did not pursue this line in the case of Mahesh Enterprises, may be because parking charges no longer remained nominal. Then last month, the court considered the question of whether a five star hotel that provided free parking and valet service to its guests, was liable for the loss of vehicle parked at its parking lot. Its decision, upholding the order of the lower consumer court directing the hotel to pay Rs 2 lakh along with 10 per cent interest calculated from the day of the theft, further consolidates the rights of consumers vis-à-vis parking lots. In this case, the complainant, Atul Virmani, had gone to the discotheque run by Hotel Hyatt, New Delhi, by paying an entrance fee of Rs 900. At the entrance of the hotel he had handed over the keys of his car to the valet, for parking his vehicle. However, at about 1.40 am when he came out, handed over the token to the valet and asked for his car, he was informed that his car was missing. When the hotel refused to compensate him for his loss, Virmani filed a complaint before the court seeking compensation, particularly because he had only third party insurance and no insurance against theft. Virmani’s contention before the court was that even though there was no separate parking fee, he had paid Rs 900 as entry fee to the discotheque at the hotel and this covered the parking services, too, and the hotel should own up its responsibility. The hotel, on the other hand, argued that the parking and the valet service were free and since free services were excluded from the purview of the consumer court, Virmani could not seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act. Besides, the token given to the car owner also stated that the hotel was not responsible for loss or damage to the vehicle left in its parking lot. So the hotel cannot be held liable. Disagreeing with this contention and upholding the award of compensation to Virmani, the apex court pointed out that the hotel may not levy a specific parking fee but the high charges collected from guests would cover the cost of providing various services to the guests, including valet parking. The hotel, therefore, cannot claim that it was a free service and cannot come under the purview of the consumer law. “Even though the hotel may have provided valet parking free of charge, still it would be covered by the deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act as it is charging for other services at very high rates,” the commission observed. This and the earlier order in the case of Mahesh Enterprises should force all those who provide parking services to ensure the safety of vehicles left in their care. The safety does not pertain only to theft. It also includes protection of vehicles against damage.
|
||
|
|
||
