Car park operators liable for damage to vehicles

PETALING JAYA: Which party is liable for damage caused to a vehicle when it is parked at a car park?

The issue of liability was raised recently when a motorist, Preshila Karunagaran, 27, discovered that her car had been damaged after parking it at a car park near the Puchong Prima LRT station.


Preshila, who works as a front desk receptionist at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur, said: “It’s disheartening, especially considering that I parked my two-month-old car in the car park on the assumption that it would be safe. I feel violated knowing that someone hit my car and ran away.”

She said she had to deal with the inconvenience of sending her car to a workshop and paying for the repairs, adding that when she approached a car park attendant, he claimed that he was unaware of the incident and that the CCTV there was not functioning.

“I lodged a police report, but there was little they could do since there was no evidence of who damaged my car.

“It’s unfair that I have to shoulder the cost for someone else’s misdeed. I wanted to file a claim with my insurance company, but that would take a few weeks to process.

“In the end, I paid RM4,859 to change the windscreens, two pairs of tyres and so on,” she added.

Lawyer Siva Ganish Sudrarajoo said car park operators can be held liable for damage to parked vehicles under contract law and the tort of negligence.

He said individuals have legal options and remedies available to them, including filing a civil claim for monetary compensation based on the tort of negligence and breach of contract.

“In Malaysia, the liability of car park operators under contract law is governed by the Contracts Act 1950. Their liability under tort is determined based on case law, with Donoghue vs Stevenson being the precedent followed by Malaysian courts,” he said.


In a landmark case, the Court of Appeal in Euro Rent A Car Sdn Bhd vs Sunway Parking Services Sdn Bhd (2020) held that the car park operator could not rely on an exemption clause to evade liability since the motorist had paid a fee to park at the facility. Hence, the parking operator must be held liable for negligence.

“When pursuing compensation for damage (to a vheicle) in a car park, it is important to be aware of the statutes of limitations.

“Legal action based on contract or tort must be filed within six years from the date the cause of action is accrued, as stipulated by the Limitation Act 1953.”


To strengthen a case against a car park operator, he emphasised that the factors and evidence taken into account when determining liability include both oral and documentary evidence.

“Claims for losses and damage can be made directly against the car park operator or through the individual’s insurance company, provided the loss or damage is covered by the insurance policy.

“Individuals should gather documentation such as a copy of the parking ticket or receipt to prove that they parked their vehicle at the operator’s car park.

“Dashcam footage or pictures or videos of the car park surroundings may also serve as crucial evidence, especially in cases of theft or negligence,” he added.

Link: https://www.thesundaily.my/local/car-park-o...cles-MD11563096

I believe it was already decided that if the customer paid for parking, then the operator is liable for any damage.

If park road side pay dbkl kena damage can claim from dbkl or not?

Yes but got tnc. But pls make sure u do pay for it

What kind of accident caused windscreen damage and 4 tyres to be changed?

If this is the damage I would assume someone intentionally hit it, and probably it wasn't parked correctly. Just my guess.

Article never mentioned accident pun.

Free parking or paid parking ?

Parking operators should be responsible of the security la...

If parking operator suka suka put claused "management not held responsible for property damage", means management sendiri can go cannabalize the car for parts etc ect, and wash hand say the cctv not functioning

"he claimed that he was unaware of the incident and that the CCTV there was not functioning." - Typical...

"In a landmark case, the Court of Appeal in Euro Rent A Car Sdn Bhd vs Sunway Parking Services Sdn Bhd (2020) held that the car park operator could not rely on an exemption clause to evade liability since the motorist had paid a fee to park at the facility. Hence, the parking operator must be held liable for negligence." - Sorry boss, park at your own risk while me busy playing PUBG with my phone

What about those that come collect from you at those seemingly public spaces ?
If something happen can we ask them to bear it ? So easy come collect money on public space.

CCTV not functioning story again

made in which country?

Correct as long as have council licence.
Licence parts of the requirements are liability insurance, cctv & emergency help button, if I'm not mistaken.

Do beware of unlicensed operator and public roads parking as these are at your own risk.

This post has been edited by DarkNite: Oct 2 2023, 09:20 AM

Those need to pay on weekdays one. Like last time need to pay at machine and now pay on tng app/jomparking/flexi parking.

Long time ago side windows got smashed but that time never thought of claim from dbkl.

parking management always say "park at your own risk"

this is provided u even paid which i know a lot didn't

this "clause" has been proven by multiple judge that it doesn't work in the face of the law

people today still put that clause in to scare people only(people who doesn't know)

Habis la after this parking operators will increase their fees.

got precedence already. he can go saman the parking operator if he wants

Someone is red eyed . . . more like it ...

sue the car park operators, their insurance may pay for the damages if they are found to be negligent

IMHO, I don't think so that Operators are liable for any damage per se, but for this case, the negligence of the Operator in ensuring the CCTVs are in working condition. Without the CCTV recordings, authorities are unable to trace the perpetrators. Therefore, they faulted on this.

Soon parking rate will become RM10 per hour

use this car , no need damage

this isn't even a new ruling or law.
everything should already all-inclusive when one charges.

if one wants to operate paid carpark, then need to provide proper facilities, proper space, proper security, proper lighting. most simply think as long as can open a space, then can immediately charge for the floor space.

if one operates a PAID car park, then providing security is implicit part and parcel of the deal. operator failed to shift damages onto the actual perp, so operator needs to shoulder the blame and compensation.

That one is different. You're paying to make sure nothing happen to your car You're not paying for the parking.

I think this one would be different case, cause you're considered parking at public space. Jurisdiction should be under JPJ, and I don't think they're liable for damages to your vehicle while parked in public space.

Yes betul for this situation. But if adequate security was provided (i.e. recording of the incident, security guard was alerted upon hearing the damage and etc), then it would be deemed the Operator fulfilled its basic duty. Hence Operators cannot sewenang-wenang put the notice "park at own risk"

in newspaper before, KPDNKKHEP or something said, displaying THAT disclaimer notice itself is ground for carpark operator to be compounded.

Some ktard loyar buruk told me msia cnt enforce Contract Law even though there was a contract when parkers paid money to the parking operator. Still got loophole, so wanna see any external grad loyar want to to put up defence?

This post has been edited by pgsiemkia: Oct 2 2023, 04:52 PM

What kind of accident that aoccur in a parking lot until need change windscreen and tyres? At most scratch & dents and maybe sidemirror broken only right, sounds like intentional vandalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think many cashless parking facilities do not have the option to issue receipt upon exit payment, unlike autopay machine.

So in the event of unfortunate, how to get proof that you have parked in the facility ? surely we would heard of CCTV not functioning, no witness from security etc


**edited due to typo error**

This post has been edited by wat de....?!: Oct 2 2023, 05:49 PM

All cashless payment have record of payment aka receipt.

You mean from the card database, such as credit card transaction, tng payment record etc.

What i meant is the receipt from carpark operator

Hello, skrg 2023!
Many transactions no long have physical paper.
What you need is proof of payment that is the electronic records which when required can be print out.