I am writing to inform your readers that I have lodged a case against a major hypermarket chain and a well-know local conglomerate with the Consumers Claims Tribunal and the hearing is scheduled for June 5.

May case is similar with the latest landmark case at the Penang magistrate's court where a customer won his claim of RM1,668 against the car park operator even though the car-park operators had displayed a ‘Park at your own risk' sign at his premises.

What happened to me and my family could happen to any other family who park their car at various supermarkets and hypermarkets. Large hypermarkets spend hundreds of thousands of ringgit in yearly advertisements to bring in the crowds by offering value for money goods.

So it is also the responsibility of these hypermarket to provide adequate safety and security measures for their customers' vehicles parked at the establishments' car parks.

These hypermarkets cannot escapes their liabilities and responsibilities by just placing s sign saying ‘Park at your own risk'.

I pose a question: You invite your friends to your house. Do you place a sign inside/outside of your house saying ‘Enter at your own risk'?

You would not because its silly and your friends will probably laugh at you. It is the same case for these hypermarkets. They place advertisements urging customers to visit and purchase their goods. Thus their ‘Park at your own risk' signs are null and void.

In the UK, the local councils provides guidelines/by-laws for building owners, hypermarkets etc to abide by. Among them:

1. CCTV cameras covering all car parking areas ensuring that all entry and exit points are fully covered. Each CCTV camera must cover a maximum of 30 square metres (as an example).

2. Constant patrolling by security guards at the car park areas.

3. Provide a third-party insurance to cover for any damages, loss, etc involving customers.

4. Adequate lighting with each light throw covering an area of 10 sq metres (as an example). This is similar to the guideline provided by our Fire Services and Rescue Department where each sprinkler in a building covers a specific area.

But in Malaysia, after checking with Kuala Lumpur City Hall for the past two months, there are no proper guidelines or building acts which require building owners, hypermarkets etc to ensure the safety of their customers are assured at all times.

What DBKL has is only a weak guideline provided by the Malaysian cabinet (after the Canny Ong murder case) where car parks are required to have CCTV cameras. The guideline does not specify the numbers of cameras required, the area to be covered, etc.

What this means is that a car park owner could install just one CCTV camera to cover 300 car parks. Does this seem logical?

Today my car is stolen, tomorrow it could be someone else's life that is taken (God forbid). The respective ministries ie, Local Government, Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs etc, must act to add/enforce new building guidelines and acts to protect consumers.

I have the full backing of Fomca, the National Consumers Complaints Centre (NCCC) and a member of Parliament for my case and they will attend June 5 hearing.

Currently, I am waiting for official written replies from the Legal and Licensing Department of DBKL with regards to the fact that hypermarkets do have obligations and are liable losses at their car parks.