[aayushnair]

Hi Guys,

My sister is a lawyer and I ran her through this thread, she rubbished all these points mentioned on the parking slips/receipts etc, saying that the minute a service is provided whether paid of free it is the sole responsibility of the service provider to ensure that there are no mishaps. In the event of such a mishap - the responsibility too lies in the hands of the person/service provider who has taken it upon himself to provide that service.
There is even a case law in this effect - where a person has filed a complaint in the consumer forum for damages to his car in a parking lot. The court held exactly what i've mentioned above.

So it doesnt mean that we dont take care of our car just because the service provider is responsible - In this country fighting something like this will take years, can we do something about the deficiency of this service - I dont think so!

Cheers,
Aayush

[zenren]

Originally Posted by honeybee

It's untenable in the court since you have no option in this case. Once you have handed over the car to them if the car suffers any damage, especially because of negligence then the service centre must pay.

Even the judges who give out the ruling would be owning some car or the other. So they'll easily see the hollowness in the argument of the service centres since even these judges are at the mercy of the service centres and whatever ruling they give would be applicable to them in future. The service stations refusing to take up responsibility for their own actions is really unacceptable, especially in case of major mishaps like accidents.

However, this has all got to do with the general levels of honesty that the 'aam aadmi' shows. No service centre can take the responsibility of damages in a country where the owners would point out old scratches and dents while taking the car back from the service accusing the service centres of having caused it during the service to get it repaired free of cost. So even if some service centre goes the ethical way and removes this disclaimer from their job card, it won't be long before they put it back!

Similarly, the mechanics in these service centres are also part of this very same 'aam aadmi' and are unlikely to own up their mistake when their management asks about it. It boils down to your word against theirs in case of small scratches which may or may not have existed when the car was given for service. Both sides have enough samples of dishonest people so that it can never be generalized that one side is always truthful. The current model serves as a way for service centres to wriggle out of the dishonest public falsely accusing them. However, in some cases, they are using this protection as a basis for getting out of serious mistakes too. That said, if the law dictates them to remove this clause, there would be numerous owners who would immediately start exploiting that.

Originally Posted by sdp1975

The Consumer Protection Act covers 'deficiency in service'. It will cover cases such as theft in a parking lot, damage while vehicle is being serviced,etc whenever you pay money for a service being rendered. Wherever there's proven deficiency in service, compensation will be awarded.

Originally Posted by mints21

One of the parking slip mentions that the rates are inclusive of service tax which means that parking comes under the ambit of service tax. Now, if service tax is charged then any negligence should fall under the category "deficiency of service".

Let me take a Devil's advocate view to that argument just for the sake of a debate.

In case of parking spaces, we are assuming a lot more service than what we are paying for. The service that they offer is just an authorization to park in premises that doesn't belong to us. The fee is for the permission to park and nothing else. They have not offered any other service. Just because we pay them Rs. 20 doesn't mean we are entitled to the services that we like; we are paying them for what they are offering. That disclaimer is a clear way of letting the owners know that they are allowing you to park in premises that they own or control and no additional services are offered. So it is unlikely that even the court can hold them accountable.

If you park in your neighbour's house without their permission, they can technically file a complaint against you for trespassing. The parking fee is just the fee to ensure they don't consider you trespassing on their property.

[JASMEET MATTOO]

Hi guys

Was just going through this interesting conversation.Would like to relate this topic to a banking terminology (Coming from a banking background, cant really help) - Banking Laws and Practices. Even there we are taught that Laws arevery different from actual practices.

Anyone can write anything on their terms and conditions and obviously a consumer will consume services even if one or more terms and conditions is not convincing or justified to him. That does not take away the ownership and accountability from the person providing the service. Even the courts of Law would take into consideration that the interests of the end consumer do not get compromised.

There are a lot examples in Real Estate where Builders agreement said one thing, customer had signed such agreements also, but the courts gave a ruling completely over ruling those clauses, claiming that thy are not justified or fair even though customer had signed it.

[TheTeacher]

Somebody I know had a BMW 3 series and attended the same wedding I did at the Taj Coromandel in Chennai (2011). When he got his valet-parked car back, he noticed a nice ding on the right side bumper / wheel arch. He took it up with them, and they shrugged and pointed to the escape clause "at owner's risk". Couldn't hang around to see how it ended.

Even the Tatas, supposedly the most moral business house in the country, do this.

[nitinbose]

I have felt the same as well. Why do they charge for the parking when they cant offer security. We visit/stay at expensive hotels for security as the main reason. If they too cant offer security, what's the point in parking on the roadside vs a paid parking?

I always insist on self parking and carry the keys with me. I would also carry the parking ticket with me. There are several cases of parking attendants mis-using our cars.

[ksmrsm]

Originally Posted by Urban_Nomad

something as basic as selling food beyond its expiration date by a store / manufacturer is absolutely fine BY LAW.

It is upto the buyer to ensure that the food they are buying is of right quality. They must conduct these checks to ensure they and / or their families do not die of food poisoning.

As a hotelier and being in the food industry, I beg to disagree here. The LAW does not permit you to sell food past its expiry date. You can take the store to court if you can prove that they sold you the expired product and can be sure to win.

What happens is that due to the negligence/over working of the staff monitoring the expiry date of a product, they continue to remain on the shelf for unsuspecting customers to buy. I have had this experience personally even in a Reliance store.

Originally Posted by TheTeacher

Somebody I know had a BMW 3 series and attended the same wedding I did at the Taj Coromandel in Chennai (2011). When he got his valet-parked car back, he noticed a nice ding on the right side bumper / wheel arch. He took it up with them, and they shrugged and pointed to the escape clause "at owner's risk". Couldn't hang around to see how it ended.

Even the Tatas, supposedly the most moral business house in the country, do this.

I would not like to start a controversy on this issue but to clarify, not just a TATA run hotel but no hotel would accept this as there is no proof that the "nice ding" happened in the hotel's parking.

This behaviour is also due to the reason mentioned in one of the earlier post "that some Aam Aadmi try and take the hotels/parking lots for a ride by claiming damages for incidents outside the property".

If your friend could prove that the dent happened in the hotel, I am sure that the management would be able to do something about it, at least for good will.

[Rubbertramps]

Mutual Feelings my friend ! Good that you brought it up !

Once i left my Punto at the service station and was standing near the same. A SA came in and started the car with the AC still on. I take extra care to wait for the glow plugs, check for the AC, the player and then start the car. But these buggers dont give a dime about these things. I asked him and he started saying i should have put the AC off before i left the car. What levels of customer service !

[VinodDevil81]

A worthy point to discuss.

I have always felt uncomfortable at this clause every time I sign a job-card at a service centre, but could never help it. And after signing this, many a times I have witnessed Service Advisors taking in my car to the service bay in the most rash and careless manner.Needless to say, it could only help to aggravate my apprehensions.

Originally Posted by zenren

However, this has all got to do with the general levels of honesty that the 'aam aadmi' shows. No service centre can take the responsibility of damages in a country where the owners would point out old scratches and dents while taking the car back from the service accusing the service centres of having caused it during the service to get it repaired free of cost. So even if some service centre goes the ethical way and removes this disclaimer from their job card, it won't be long before they put it back!

In such cases, to avoid false claims by the customer later,can something be done like recording or accounting the current state of the vehicle when it is handed over to the Service centre?

Like say, The SA taking note/making a list of all the dents/or scratches already on the car or taking a high-resolution photo from each of the 4 sides which can be shown as a proof later? The customer can be made to sign under that list/photo before leaving the vehicle at the service centre.

In case of parking spaces, we are assuming a lot more service than what we are paying for. The service that they offer is just an authorization to park in premises that doesn't belong to us. The fee is for the permission to park and nothing else. They have not offered any other service. Just because we pay them Rs. 20 doesn't mean we are entitled to the services that we like; we are paying them for what they are offering. That disclaimer is a clear way of letting the owners know that they are allowing you to park in premises that they own or control and no additional services are offered. So it is unlikely that even the court can hold them accountable.

Agree.In the case of paid parking, this stands true.We are just paying for the space and nothing more.But the same cannot be put forward as an argument in the case of leaving the car at a service centre. They need to take up more responsibility.

Because unlike a paid parking where the car is at rest until the owner returns, in a service centre the car is being moved/driven around by people unknown to the owner.So chances/risks of an accident/damage is many times more in this case.We are paying the labour cost as part of the service bill. Since test-driving or taking the vehicle in/out of the Service centre is part of the SA/mechanic's labour, for which we have paid, how can they become not accountable for any lapse in their labour?

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by TheTeacher

Somebody I know had a BMW 3 series and attended the same wedding I did at the Taj Coromandel in Chennai (2011). When he got his valet-parked car back, he noticed a nice ding on the right side bumper / wheel arch. He took it up with them, and they shrugged and pointed to the escape clause "at owner's risk". Couldn't hang around to see how it ended.

Even the Tatas, supposedly the most moral business house in the country, do this.

Don't blame the TATAs for this. Comes to that how do we know that the Beemer owner is more honest than the Aam Aadmi who drives a humbler Hyundai Verna, say and that indeed it was a genuine claim?
Of course we do know that the valets are usually always under pressure and will tend to take short cuts.
This is why if I am in a situation where I cannot park my own car safely in a controlled premises, I prefer taking a taxi.

Originally Posted by Naman_Ferrari

This is a major problem when you give out your car to the valet.

About 2 years ago, I had given my Mercedes to the valet of a very reputed restaurant in Bangalore.
To my horror, when I got the car back, the MB logo was missing from the hood.
When I questioned the valet, instead of being sorry, he blamed me and said that it was like that when I gave it to them and they had nothing to do with it.
What's worse is that the management supported the valet and told me that "PARKING IS AT OWNERS RISK"
I was really annoyed but didn't want to argue and just left.

I think thats something to think about before any of us give our dear cars to the valet again.

This is terrible indeed. You should have thrashed the restaurant management on the social media networks...

[zenren]

Originally Posted by VinodDevil81

In such cases, to avoid false claims by the customer later,can something be done like recording or accounting the current state of the vehicle when it is handed over to the Service centre?

Like say, The SA taking note/making a list of all the dents/or scratches already on the car or taking a high-resolution photo from each of the 4 sides which can be shown as a proof later? The customer can be made to sign under that list/photo before leaving the vehicle at the service centre.

In theory, they are supposed to do it. The job cards in MASS have a section to note the scratches on the car and the accessories and tools fitted in the car. In practice, if they closely inspect the cars to capture all scratches and take photos, it would take more than 20-30 minutes to accept each car and the other owners in the queue would be required to wait for up to 2-3 hours just to give their car for service. I don't think any owner would be willing to do that.

If service stations are required to keep photos of the car during each service, the insurance companies can demand access to it and reduce the claim payment for a new part citing it was already a 'damaged' part before the accident based on the photo evidence. So this move could backfire on the owners too.

Agree.In the case of paid parking, this stands true.We are just paying for the space and nothing more.But the same cannot be put forward as an argument in the case of leaving the car at a service centre. They need to take up more responsibility.

I was referring to paid parking alone and how "deficiency of service" clause would not be applicable for that case. For that context, the disclaimer is a way to avoid any confusions over what the customer should expect.

The other two are the serious issues IMO and its probably better if we don't generalize and dilute the gravity of bigger issues.

Even between the service station and the valet parking scenarios, I see the service stations doing the more unethical route than the valet. You have a choice of not using the valet and parking on your own. So if you are not willing to accept their (valet) conditions, you go elsewhere or park on your own. In case of service stations, you are helpless and hence they are exploiting your helplessness since you have to go to them anyway.

[Naman_Ferrari]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

This is terrible indeed. You should have thrashed the restaurant management on the social media networks...

I did put it up on Facebook but I didn't do anything apart from that. My dad just told me to let the matter pass as there was no point in making a huge issue out of it.

[TheTeacher]

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

I would not like to start a controversy on this issue but to clarify, not just a TATA run hotel but no hotel would accept this as there is no proof that the "nice ding" happened in the hotel's parking.

This behaviour is also due to the reason mentioned in one of the earlier post "that some Aam Aadmi try and take the hotels/parking lots for a ride by claiming damages for incidents outside the property".

If your friend could prove that the dent happened in the hotel, I am sure that the management would be able to do something about it, at least for good will.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Don't blame the TATAs for this. Comes to that how do we know that the Beemer owner is more honest than the Aam Aadmi who drives a humbler Hyundai Verna, say and that indeed it was a genuine claim?

I clearly stated I know this guy. If I had doubts about his integrity, I wouldn't have posted here.

And it is amusing that my contact is suspect but a Ferrari owner is not.

Naman, please, I'm not casting aspersions on your integrity!

[k_nitin_r]

Originally Posted by Rubbertramps

A SA came in and started the car with the AC still on. I take extra care to wait for the glow plugs, check for the AC, the player and then start the car. But these buggers dont give a dime about these things.

I've always been extra-careful about my car, but then I was told the following:
Before you take the delivery of your car, it is driven out of the factory and onto the ramp of a double (vertical) trailer. The guys driving the car are supposed to get the car up there and they are least concerned about whether they are redlining the engine. If it's a hot day, they'd even turn on the air conditioning - if they didn't, those would be inhumane conditions because... oh, didn't I mention that the cars would be out under the sun while waiting to be loaded and not in a covered parking?

Then, that changed the way I think. Sure, the car is built tough enough to withstand the elements and occasional abuse. If I have to redline it when joining a highway from a service road, I will (and having switched from a sedan to an SUV, I most definitely will with all that extra weight).

[ksmrsm]

Originally Posted by TheTeacher

I clearly stated I know this guy. If I had doubts about his integrity, I wouldn't have posted here.

And it is amusing that my contact is suspect but a Ferrari owner is not.

Naman, please, I'm not casting aspersions on your integrity!

Please don't take offence. I am not doubting you or your friend. What I mentioned in my earlier post is from the point of view of a hotelier. This would hold good irrespective of whether it was the owner of a beemer, a ferrari, a merc or the humble amby.

The only question I raised was, can it be proved that the dent happened in the hotel. It is the word of your friend versus the hotel in this case. Even if there was a slight certainty that the incident happened in the hotel, the management would probably compensate in some way to ensure good will.

We hoteliers are taken for granted as we are in the service industry. Let me illustrate this with an example:

Last night a drunk guy pushes in a pulsar and parks it saying that he had run out of petrol. On asking for his ID and why he was parking it in our place, he starts threatening us that he is from the police and that he had the right to park anywhere he wanted and that we could do whatever we wanted.

After some heated argument and threats of calling the local inspector and throwing him behind bars, he finally shows us his faded ID issued by the RPF. We take this and his pan card as ID proof with his contact details and allow him to leave the vehicle overnight on humanitarian grounds after warning him that he need to take the vehicle out by 7 am this morning which he did sober.

[fine69]

Population explosion!!

You have a problem with the valet & hotel shrugging off responsibility, doesn't really matter. The hotel's got thousands of others who'd continue to visit their hotel.

Folks having a problem with that guy who asks for 20 rupees first and gives you the slip later, he has tons of people waiting for a parking spot in case you don't want one because of the clause.

We've got to live with what we've got, customer might be the king elsewhere but not in India. While many a times consumer court would favour the consumer and get you a quick judgement but that's not the case always.

I have an alternate viewpoint when it comes to dealing with things like this. I always set aside 5% of my earnings as the cost of living in India as a consumer. I know of one fellow bhpian whose Punto was vandalized and he had the CCTV footage for it but he chose to relocate instead of trying to get head-on with his neighbours or going the legal way. That's how things are, better be mentally prepared else these things would only affect your peace of mind.

I would rather appreciate some value addition to this thread on how this can be changed, a petition or something similar? Pardon my choice of words but simple harping on that this is wrong doesn't really change anything, or does it?