In a significant order, the district consumer disputes redressal commission in Raipur observed that private shopping complexes or malls lack the authority to levy charges on visitors for parking, as this facility remains a necessary component of the commercial building's operation.
Parking space is a mandatory requirement for obtaining building plan approval, the commission ruled. The commission ruled that charging customers for parking within a commercial shopping complex constitutes an unfair trade practice.
The order follows a complaint filed by Ajinesh Anjay Shukla, a resident of Civil Lines. On June 15, 2025, Shukla entered the Ambuja Mall premises in Saddu, Raipur, in his four-wheeler. He sought to drop off his mother at the entrance, but mall staff insisted he pay a parking fee of Rs 30 to exit the premises.
The district Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has directed the Mall to stop collecting parking fees from visitors. The bench, presided over by Prashant Kundu along with member Dr Anand Varghese, while hearing the case on April 22, cited legal precedents from other consumer forums to support the verdict. The mall management argued that they had outsourced parking operations to a third-party firm, M/s Hamasha Parkviz Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. The commission rejected this defence, noting that the primary responsibility for maintaining fair trade practices lies with the mall owners.
Legality of Parking Fees Examined
The Commission examined the legality of parking fees at private shopping malls, specifically addressing whether owners hold the right to levy charges on customers. It observed that the primary purpose of a commercial complex is to provide consumer needs in one location. Since mall owners collect maintenance fees from tenants, charging visitors for parking lacks legal justification.
Precedents Cited
The order cited the judgment in V Arun Kumar v/s VR Chennai-SVH Pvt. Ltd, where the DCDRC, Chennai, ruled that builders and owners are barred from collecting such fees. The commission also referenced C H. Mohan v/s Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, which established that developers must provide parking as part of building permit requirements and cannot charge visitors for its use.
Regarding the evidence provided, the commission noted the precedent in Vijay Gopal v/s GVK Mall, Vijayawada. It observed that the mall management failed to submit a counter-affidavit. Referring to the National Commission's ruling in Shanti Roadways v/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the commission held that the complainant's affidavit is reliable when the opposite party fails to file a rebuttal.
Compensation Ordered
The Raipur consumer court ordered the Mall management to compensate the complainant with Rs 50,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 for litigation expenses. The mall has 45 days to comply with these directions. Failure to make the payment within the stipulated time will attract an interest rate of 7% per annum.
