6 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jun 24, 2026 12:20 PM IST
A district consumer commission in Haryana has directed courier company DTDC to refund Rs 1,440 for courier charges and pay Rs 11,000 compensation to a man after his parcel containing Teej festival gifts for his son-in-law, who was living in Navi Mumbai, was found damaged and empty.
Dealing with a plea against the courier company, a bench of president Rajbir Singh and members Jasvinder Singh and Suman Rana also awarded Rs 11,000 litigation cost to the man.
“The complainant’s consignment was damaged during the shipment by the opponents. This fact is enough to reach at a conclusion that the opponents is deficient in providing service to the complainant and further, on receipt of complaint from the complainant, the opponent also failed to take any action on the complaint of the complainant and they also failed to compensate the complainant for damaged items in the parcel, which shows, the opponents are involved in unfair trade practice, because due to inaction on their part, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment…” the commission said on June 3.
The commission continued that the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment, forcing him to knock on the door of this commission; therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance against the opponents.
Teej gift found damaged, empty
The complainant booked a courier shipment on August 8, 2025, from Yamuna Nagar to Navi Mumbai, intended for delivery to his son-in-law on the occasion of the Teej festival.
According to the complainant, the official of DTDC courier assured him that if the parcel was booked by air courier with special charges, it would be delivered within three days, whereas in the ordinary course, delivery would take five days.
Relying on this assurance and considering that the parcel contained perishable edible items, the complainant paid extra charges and opted for air delivery. The consignment consisted of eight kilograms of eatables and other gifts, worth Rs 10,000, carrying not only financial, but also sentimental value for the festival occasion.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant paid Rs 1,440 as courier charges, with assurances of safe and timely delivery; however, despite the parcel reaching Panvel on August 7, 2025, as per the tracking record, it was not delivered within the assured period.
Subsequently, on August 11, 2025, the complainant lodged a complaint at the official toll-free customer care number of DTDC and was informed that the parcel was being traced and that the matter was under consideration.
In Mumbai, the complainant’s son-in-law personally visited the Panvel office for collection of the parcel, but he was informed that the consignment was lying at the Vashi Branch, Juhi Nagar, Navi Mumbai, and on reaching there, he found the parcel in a damaged and empty condition.
Not responsible for spoilage: DTDC
The DTDC, in their reply, have taken preliminary objections such as the complaint is not maintainable, etc, and submitted that the booking was accepted as per standard procedure and under general terms and conditions, and the complainant was only informed of the estimated delivery period, subject to operational and transit conditions.
Story continues below this ad
It was further argued by the DTDC that the company never guarantees a fixed-time delivery unless a separate premium assured service is availed.
According to DTDC, the complainant had not produced any invoice, receipt or proof showing that the consignment contained eight kilograms of eatable items and gifts worth Rs 10,000, and as per the company’s policy, perishable and eatable items are carried entirely at the sender’s risk, and the company cannot be held responsible for any spoilage or loss caused by the nature of the goods.
Duty to deliver consignment in safe custody: Order
- It is a well-settled principle of law of evidence that, as and when a particular fact is required to be proved by way of documentary evidence, then no oral evidence is admissible to prove the fact.
- Firstly, the opponents have not placed on record any company’s policy according to which the company cannot be held responsible for any spoilage or loss caused by the nature of goods.
- The opponents also have not placed on record the terms and conditions which were printed on the overleaf of the receipt, and further, the opponents have not placed on record any document which shows that the consignment containing the items/things is/are required to be insured.
- There is no explanation that the DTDC ever offered the complainant to insure the consignment which was booked by him, but the complainant declined the same.
- The opponents charged Rs 1,440 as courier charges, so it was the duty that once they received payment of courier charges from the complainant, then it was bound to deliver the consignment in safe custody to the complainant as per their own commitment.
- The complainant’s consignment was damaged during the shipment by the DTDC.
Significance of ruling
This judgment is crucial because it reinforces consumer protection against courier negligence. It rules that companies cannot rely on unproven “limited liability” terms to avoid accountability for damaged goods. It ensures compensation for financial loss and mental agony, holding service providers responsible for safe delivery.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana contact: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
