The complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups over several months, the parcel was never delivered. (Image generated using AI)A Tamil Nadu district consumer commission has held a courier company liable for deficiency in service after noting that a man’s parcel, carrying food items among other essential things, meant to reach his daughter in Italy, never reached her. The courier company was, therefore, directed to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation.President S Deepa and member A S Rathinasamy also held that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of courier charges paid by the complainant.“The consignment is neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the Complainant. Therefore it seems that either the consignment may be misplaced or misused by someone else,” the order dated June 11 read.The commission directed the company to return the consignment if it remains undelivered, or refund its value upon production of proof of its value if it cannot be returned.Parcel not deliveredAccording to the complaint, the complainant booked an 11-kg parcel on December 4, 2023, containing shoes, stationery, dresses and food items (masala) for his daughter residing in Italy.He said a representative of the courier company assured him that the parcel would be delivered within 30 days. However, it was alleged that despite repeated follow-ups over several months, the parcel was neither delivered nor was he given any meaningful update about its whereabouts.The complainant alleged that he repeatedly contacted the company’s representatives, but was merely asked to call a phone number that yielded no useful information.Story continues below this adDue to the delay, he asked the company to stop the delivery process, return the parcel and refund the courier charges. When these requests also went unanswered, he issued a legal notice however there was no reply.Alleging mental agony, harassment, and monetary loss, the complainant moved consumer forum.The courier company contested the complaint, arguing that the airway bill and consignment number cited by the complainant belonged to some other service provider.It asserted that the shipment was booked through a third-party courier service and, therefore, any grievance regarding the shipment lied against the concerned courier service provider.Story continues below this adThey also denied having given any assurances regarding delivery and disputed the allegations of delay, non-delivery, and lack of communication. Maintaining that the reliefs and compensation sought were without merit and unsupported by law, they asserted that no cause of action existed against them and sought dismissal of the complaint.Relief grantedThe commission, however, noted if the courier company in question had no business relationship with that courier service provider, it would not have directed the complainant to use it.“If really the opposite parties (courier company) have no business relation or privity of contract with the above said…service they need not have suggested the above said courier service to the complainant at any cost and also it is found that till date the consignment is neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant,” the order read.The commission held that it is the bounden duty of the courier company to deliver the consignment to the addressee or to return the same to the complainant. It consequently held the courier company guilty of deficiency in service.Story continues below this adThe commission directed the company to refund Rs 8,195 paid as courier charges, return the consignment if it remains undelivered, or refund its value upon production of proof of its value if it cannot be returned.It further directed to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the complainant for the mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service along with Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Tamil Nadu contact: 044-28592828) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More Tags:consumer court