Charging for vehicle parking in shopping mall unfair, says Chennai consumer forum
The Hindu
Ruling that charging for parking in a shopping mall is an unfair trade practice, the District Consumer District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Chennai (North) has directed V.R. Mall in Thirumangalam to immediatey discontinue the imposition of parking fees on customers.
Ruling that charging for parking in a shopping mall is an unfair trade practice, the District Consumer District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Chennai (North) has directed V.R. Mall in Thirumangalam to immediatey discontinue the imposition of parking fees on customers.
Disposing of a consumer complaint filed by V. Arun Kumar of Kosapet, the forum asked the mall administration not to repeat this practice.
The complainant said he visited the shopping mall on April 26, 2023, and was charged ₹80 to park his two-wheeler for one hour and 57 minutes inside the parking bay of the mall. The complainant asked an employee why the fee was collected when the mall was mandated to provide enough parking facilities to customers and visitors for free.
The opposite party (the mall), however, contended that there was no bar on imposing parking charges and that the relevant law, the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, only requires that adequate parking spaces be made available for visitors. It does not mandate that parking should be offered “free of charge”, it said.
After a discussion on various relevant rulings, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Chennai-North), headed by D. Gopinath, said that as the opposite party had failed to bring on record any enabling provision to permit them in imposing parking charges, it has to be naturally presumed that they do not possess such rights and therefore, the imposition of charges in pursuant to the same would clearly constitute unfair trade practices.
The forum directed the mall to pay a compensation of ₹10,000 to the complainant for the mental agony, pain, and suffering endured as a result of this unfair trade practice. It was also directed to pay ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.













