Tamil Nadu man takes car to railway station for a pick-up, gets charged Rs 20 parking fee despite not using the parking lot, consumer court orders Rs 13,000 compensation

A Tamil Nadu man who drove to Rajapalayam railway station to pick up his father was charged Rs 20 by a parking contractor despite not using the station's parking facility. When he challenged the collection, the District Consumer Commission, Virudhunagar, held the railway authorities and contractors jointly liable.

The commission ordered them to refund Rs 20, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and another Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses. The total amount payable is Rs 13,020.

Why was the man charged Rs 20 despite not using parking lot?

The incident took place at Rajapalayam railway station on December 20, 2025, when Vettrivel Lakshmanan visited the station in his car to receive his father.


Lakshmanan alleged that he had not parked his vehicle in the designated parking area and had only entered the station to pick up a passenger. Despite this, the parking contractors collected Rs 20 from him.

He challenged the collection, arguing that vehicles entering railway stations only to pick up or drop off passengers were entitled to a free window of six minutes under the commercial tender conditions governing the parking facility.

He also questioned how the contractor had calculated the parking charge without establishing how long his vehicle had remained inside the station premises.

Why did the contractor's timing system become important?

Lakshmanan argued that the contractors had not used the computerised, time-stamped boom barrier system to calculate his vehicle's exact entry and exit timings.

He maintained that the prescribed system should have been used to establish whether his vehicle had exceeded the permitted free period before collecting any charge.

To support his complaint, he submitted the parking receipt dated December 20, 2025, photographs showing the contractor behind his car after taking its photograph, screenshots of his phone call records and a Google Pay transaction record.

He also produced two RTI replies received from the railway authorities on January 20 and April 1, 2026.

Why did the consumer commission hold Railways responsible?

The commission questioned how the contractors had concluded that Lakshmanan's vehicle had exceeded the permitted time when they had not used the time-stamped boom barrier system to establish its exact entry and exit timings.

It relied on the two RTI replies while examining the complainant's allegations.

The commission also held the railway authorities responsible for failing to monitor the contractors operating the parking facility. It noted that the contractors were working under the railway administration's licence and that the authorities had not adequately supervised their activities.

It concluded that collecting Rs 20 without extending the benefit of the six-minute free window, particularly when the complainant had not used the parking facility, amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The commission held all the opposite parties jointly and severally liable for the amount collected.

How much compensation must the railway authorities pay?

In its order pronounced on October 16, 2026, the Virudhunagar District Consumer Commission partly allowed Lakshmanan's complaint.

It directed all opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs 20, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and stress, and pay Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses.

The payments must be made within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

If the opposite parties fail to comply within this period, the refund and compensation amounts, excluding litigation expenses, will carry interest at 9% per annum from October 16, 2026, until realisation.