4 min readNew DelhiAug 8, 2026 08:30 AM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2026 at 08:30 AM IST
The Thrissur District Consumer Commission held D R Courier liable for deficiency in service after tailoring machines shipped from Dubai were delivered in an allegedly severely damaged and unusable condition. The commission awarded Rs 50,000 compensation to the man.
Dealing with a plea of a tailor, a bench of president C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R also awarded Rs 10,000 litigation costs.
“It needs no further evidence that the complainant’s intent to start a new tailoring establishment in his native place was hampered by the damage caused to the impugned machines. The deficiency on the part of the opposite party might certainly have inflicted agony, hardship and financial loss on the complainant,” the commission said on July 27.
The opposite party’s contention regarding delay is unsustainable. The complaint has been instituted within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The extensive damage caused to the impugned machines, which is attributed to the fault and imperfection on the part of the opposite party, has already been proved by the unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant.
Tailor’s machines damaged during transit
The complainant, a tailor by profession, had been running a tailoring business in Dubai. After winding up his business, he purchased four expensive tailoring machines, including an embroidery machine, a zigzag machine, and two interlock machines, and entrusted them to a courier service for shipment to his native place in Kerala after paying the required charges.
Upon delivery in India, the machines were found to be severely damaged and unusable. The complainant alleged that the damage occurred while the consignment was in the custody of the courier company, preventing him from starting a tailoring business in his hometown.
He therefore approached the consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and seeking reimbursement for the value of the machines, along with compensation and litigation costs.
Courier denied consumer relationship exists
The opposite party denied the existence of a consumer relationship, arguing that the complainant had entrusted the consignment to a courier service in Dubai and not directly to it.
It alleged that the delivery note relied upon by the complainant was fabricated and therefore could not be relied upon.
It further contended that the complaint had been filed nearly one and a half years after the consignment was dispatched from Dubai, implying that the claim was belated.
Damage rendered them unusable: Order
The commission held that a consumer relationship existed between the complainant and the opposite party. It noted that the courier invoice issued in Dubai and the delivery note issued in India bore the same business name, “DR Courier,” along with identical Indian contact details, showing that they were associated entities. The opposite party failed to produce any evidence to support its allegation that the delivery note was fabricated.
The commission observed that the complainant had recorded, at the time of delivery itself, that the machines were received in a damaged condition. An Expert Commissioner also found that the machines had suffered extensive damage due to heavy impact and that they had not been packed in accordance with internationally accepted packaging standards for fragile goods.
It held that the courier company had not rebutted the complainant’s evidence or the expert report. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the machines were damaged while in transit and that the opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service.
However, the commission refused to order a refund of the value of the machines because the complainant failed to produce purchase invoices, receipts, bank records, or any other documentary evidence proving their actual purchase price.
Takeaway
This ruling reinforces that courier companies can be held liable for damage to goods during transit when consumers produce credible evidence, and the service provider fails to rebut it. It also underscores that while compensation for deficiency in service may be awarded, claims for the value of damaged goods require documentary proof of purchase.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi helpline: 011-23379146) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/promotional-scheme-car-punjab-man-wins-dubai-trip-10820991/
https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/used-car-dealer-suvs-accident-kerala-buyer-rs-2-56-lakh-10820467/
https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/valet-damages-customers-car-restobar-ordered-to-pay-rs-3-lakh-10734308/
The District Consumer Commission was dealing with a plea of tailor seeking compensation. (AI-generated Image) 
Share
