AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Telangana, in its August 12 order, has directed courier company DTDC to pay Rs 78,000 to a man after finding that the company failed to deliver a parcel containing sarees and other items sent to his sister in the United States. The commission also directed DTDC to pay 7 per cent annual interest on the Rs 18,000 courier charges if the amount is not paid within 45 days.What was the dispute over the undelivered parcel?According to the commission order, Rentapalli Rajasekhar, a 36-year-old software engineer from Khammam, booked a 24.330-kg parcel with DTDC on September 5, 2022, to send it to his sister in the United States. The parcel contained costly sarees, groceries and other articles, which Rajasekhar said were worth around Rs 1.50 lakh. He paid Rs 18,000 as courier charges and was assured that the parcel would be delivered within a week.However, the parcel was not delivered to his sister. Rajasekhar repeatedly contacted DTDC to find out what had happened. On October 31, 2022, a DTDC representative told him by email that the shipment had been scheduled for connection through Aramex. Another email on November 1 said a claim had been raised with UPS and that the refund process would be closed within 45 days.The parcel was still neither delivered nor refunded. On January 21, 2023, DTDC customer service told Rajasekhar that the shipment was under customs clearance and would be delivered once released. He said he received no further update despite repeated enquiries. He eventually sent legal notices to the company and other parties, but received no response.Rajasekhar approached the consumer commission seeking delivery of the parcel or Rs 1 lakh towards the value of the goods, refund of Rs 1.50 lakh towards the shipment value, Rs 3 lakh as compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and other losses, besides litigation costs.None of the five opposite parties appeared before the commission or filed a response despite receiving notice. The commission therefore considered Rajasekhar's evidence and the documents submitted by him.What did the commission say?The bench comprising President V Lalitha and member A Madhavi Latha noted that Rajasekhar had produced the receipt showing that he had booked the parcel with DTDC and had also produced documents showing that his sister never received it. It further noted that the company had not provided any explanation about what happened to the parcel.“The complainant has produced documentary evidence showing entrustment of parcel to the opposite parties and their non-delivery to the consignee. The opposite parties, despite service of notice, failed to place any material explaining the loss or whereabouts of the parcels. The evidence of the complainant therefore remains unrebutted. Non-delivery of entrusted parcel without any satisfactory explanation constitutes deficiency in service and the issuance of empty receipt without mentioning any details of parcel clearly amounts to unfair trade practice,” the commission said.The commission also said that the courier company had a responsibility to either deliver the parcel or refund its value. Since it failed to do either, the commission held that there was a failure in service.“We are of the opinion that it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties No.1 to 5 to deliver the parcel or refund an amount of parcel’s value to the complainant but in this instance they did not do so. It is apparently shows that the opposite parties No.1 to 5 deliberately did not render their services effectively which amounts to be deficiency of service and also it amounts to follow unfair trade practice,” it further said.However, the commission did not award the full Rs 1.50 lakh claimed for the value of the goods because Rajasekhar had not produced documents proving the actual value of the items inside the parcel. It said the value could not be determined without proper evidence.“We observed that the value of the goods in parcel was not mentioned in the bill, the complainant also fails to produce any documents regarding the worth of the goods in parcel, as such we cannot ascertain the value of the goods without proper evidence,” the bench held.The commission ultimately partly allowed the complaint and directed DTDC and the other opposite parties to jointly pay Rs 18,000 towards the courier charges, Rs 50,000 for mental agony, pain and suffering, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.The parties were given 45 days to comply with the order. If the Rs 18,000 courier charge is not paid within that period, it will carry 7% annual interest from December 31, 2025, the date on which the complaint was filed, until payment.