Man waiting at station ‘forced’ to give Rs 20 car parking fee: Railways to pay Rs 13,000

A law student’s quick trip to a railway station to pick his elderly family members turned into an unpleasant experience after the parking staff allegedly demanded Rs 20 from him even though his car was not parked, and threatened to impose a Rs 500 fine if he refused to pay it. A Tamil Nadu consumer commission has now directed the railway authorities and parking contractor to refund him Rs 20 and an additional Rs 13,000 for mental agony and litigation costs.

The bench comprising president S J Chakkkaravarthy and member M Muthulakshmi held that the licence granted by the railway administration to the parking contractor “is strictly limited to a demarcated and designated parking lot.” The contractor’s jurisdiction does not extend to public roads, circulation areas or drop-off lanes of the railway station, it added. 

Noting that under the Consumer Protection Act, a legal fee can be charged provided the service is rendered, and that in this instance, “the alleged car vehicle was neither parked nor turned off and it did not utilise the designated parking infrastructure,” the commission held in the October 16 order that the vehicle was only using the circulation area or drop-off lane for the immediate pick-up of the elderly passengers and “charging a parking fee where no parking service was provided constitutes an unfair trade practice.” 

As per the standard tender conditions and policy of Southern Railway (Madurai Division), the commission said a free window up to six minutes “is provided in the railway circulation area for the purpose of ‘drop and drive’ or picking up the passengers.” 

The order further noted, “The contractor had no legal authority to levy charges on vehicles that exit within this stipulated area,” and the complainant suffered stress and harassment over car parking due to the parking contractor and its employees, who forced him to pay Rs 20 when he had “not at all used the parking area.”

‘Illegal demand, mockery, threat’

On December 20, 2025, the complainant went to Rajapalayam railway station in his vehicle to receive his parents and elderly paternal grandparents. At the station, he remained in the driver’s seat with the engine running, moving along the queue of traffic in the designated transit lane to pick passengers, he said.

The complainant alleged that at this point, two employees of the parking contractor stopped him and demanded a parking fee of Rs 20 under an unauthorised “6-minute rule”. He said one of them carried an identity card bearing the Southern Railway logo on the reverse side.

Story continues below this ad

The demand, he said, came with a veiled threat of punitive action, and he was told that non-compliance would result in a fine of Rs 500, citing Section 159 of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby pressuring him to make an illegal payment. He pointed out that his vehicle was not within the designated parking area, which is a physically distinct zone. However, the agents persisted in their demand. 

The complainant, being a student of law with an understanding of his legal rights, tried to explain the illegality of their demand. The receipt issued also served as proof of an illegal collection for a service that was never rendered. 

He also alleged that the agents, despite being private employees of the parking contractor, misrepresented themselves as railway employees. Their conduct, including illegal demand, threat of prosecution, mockery and retaliatory photography, caused immense mental agony, public humiliation, and emotional distress to him and his elderly family members, he said, and sought compensation. 

No restraint, coercion: Staff

The parking employees, in their written version, stated that the contractor was the duly authorised parking contractor appointed by the railway and station authorities to manage vehicle movement and parking at Rajapalayam railway station. 

Story continues below this ad

It was stated that the employee, while discharging his duty, informed the complainant of the applicable charge and collected it through digital payment and issued a receipt for the same. 

There was no wrongful restraint, coercion, misrepresentation of authority, or threat of penal action at any point of time. The interaction was routine, brief and confined strictly to enforcement of parking regulations intended to ensure smooth traffic flow and prevent congestion within railway premises, they submitted.

Parking authorities had no authority to charge 

The commission said the railway administration’s tender conditions require the contractor to allow a free time window (6 minutes) for vehicles entering the station for rapid drop-off or pick-up of passengers. Denying this free window violates the operational standards mandated by railway rules. 

It held that a service provider is legally bound to act transparently. Collecting money manually without checking the vehicle’s entry/exit time stamp is a total collapse of standard operating protocols, directly causing monetary loss and harassment to the consumer. 

Story continues below this ad

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the railway authorities, station authorities, parking contractor and its employees to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs 20 to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, besides a compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony, harassment and stress caused to the complainant, besides Rs 3,000  as litigation costs.

Takeaway 

The ruling highlights that the licence granted by the railway administration to the parking contractor is strictly limited to a designated parking lot. The contractor’s jurisdiction does not extend to the roads, circulation areas or drop-off lanes of the railway station. Demanding money outside the licensed boundary amounts to unauthorised collection and is an unfair trade practice. 

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Tamil Nadu: 044-285-92828) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories

Farmer denied claim under PM Fasal Bima Yojana, SBI insurance to pay him Rs 56,000

Story continues below this ad

Car stolen, claim rejected over keys left in ignition, insurer liable to pay Rs 4.25 lakh

Rs 10 parking fee dispute ends in Rs 22 lakh penalty for hospital, contractor