|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shopping malls are charging a high rate for parking nowadays days. Is this justifiable? Is there anything that consumers can do?
A couple of years ago, some of the malls in Delhi and Gurgaon started charging Rs 100 for parking during festival sales. This resulted in shoppers parking their vehicles on the roadside. As this obstructed the traffic flow on roads around the malls, the local administration and the police intervened and forced the malls to bring down the rates.
Despite charging a steep fee, parking lots in shopping malls put notice saying that parking is at owner's risk. Does it mean that they will not be liable if a car is damaged or stolen? Do such notices take away the vehicle owners' right to compensation in case of damage or loss of the vehicle? Such a notice does not offer any protection to the parking contractor, nor does it allow him to escape liability for any loss to the car owner. If a vehicle is stolen or damaged and those managing the parking are unwilling to make good the loss, one can always go to the consumer court for relief. However, it is important to keep the parking receipt safe. In a number of cases, consumers have got compensation through consumer courts for the theft of vehicles parked in manned parking lots. In Mahesh Enterprises vs Arun Kumar Gumber (RP NO 250 of 1997, decided on November 15, 2000), for example, the airport authority and the parking lot contractor at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport argued that they cannot be held liable for the theft of a vehicle from the parking area. However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disagreed and after examining the contract between the Airport Authority and the parking contractor, ordered the parking contractor to pay the consumer Rs 90,000, along with 12 per cent interest, calculated from the day of the theft. Similarly in The Mysore Dasara Exhibition Authroity and S.B.Manikya Raju (RP No 2910 of 2002, decided on Feb 13, 2006) the national commission directed the parking contractor to make good the loss suffered by the consumer as a result of the loss of his car parked at the exhibition ground. Then in August 2008, the apex consumer 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 vehicles from its parking lot. Its decision, directing the hotel to pay Rs 2 lakh, along with 10 per cent interest, further consolidated the rights of consumers vis-`E0-vis parking lots (M/S Hotel Hyatt Regency Vs Mr Atul Virmani, FA No 102 of 2004, decided on August 1, 2008)).
|
||
|
|
||
For any service, the
charges are justifiable so long as these are reasonable. When it goes
beyond what can be termed 'reasonable' than it becomes sheer greed.
Shopping malls need to remember that parking is an integral and
essential part of a shopping facility. In the absence of this
facility, malls would not be able to attract consumers at all in the
first place. In fact, today many shops situated in congested
localities sans parking space, lose out on customers. Many retailers
who are only too aware of this, offer valet parking. For the same
reason, in shopping malls too, some of the retailers underwrite your
parking expenses when you buy from them.
So whenever parking fee
goes beyond a reasonable limit, consumers need to send out a clear
signal that they will not go to malls that impose such steep fees. If
the retailers in the mall want business, will have to prevail upon the
mall management to ensure that parking is free or the fee is kept at a
reasonable amount. Consumers also need to protest over the practice of
differential pricing based on demand (higher rates for weekends). This
is nothing but sheer exploitation of consumers. One way of putting an
end to all this is to send a letter signed by a group of consumers to
the retail outlets in shopping malls and also to the local
administration and the police, expressing displeasure over such
exploitation. Consumers can also seek the intervention of courts in
these matters.