“The repeated postponement of delivery of an essential household product, the need for repeated customer-care complaints, the contradictory delivery status and the eventual return of the consignment after the complainant had repeatedly sought delivery constitute genuine inconvenience and mental harassment warranting reasonable compensation,” the commission observed on August 21.
The commission also held that the company providing the platform for online shopping could not be held responsible in this case because the online retail business was handled by another company and not the said brand itself.
Order cancelled without consent
The man claimed that he ordered diapers worth Rs 1,429 for his one-and-a-half-year-old daughter on March 9, 2025. The product was expected to be delivered by March 12 and was dispatched the same day.
The product reached the nearest delivery hub the next day but was not delivered. The complainant said that on March 14, he received an “out for delivery” message naming a delivery agent, but the agent allegedly told him that he was not assigned to that route and did not know about the parcel.
He repeatedly complained to the courier company and the online seller and also approached the National Consumer Helpline. The complainant said that, despite repeated assurances from the courier company, the parcel was not delivered on the subsequent dates. On March 24, 2025, the online seller cancelled the order and started a refund without his consent, he claimed.
Story continues below this ad
The courier company, however, claimed that the man had refused to provide the OTP needed to complete the delivery.
He alleged that he was not given a proper reason for the cancellation and was also not provided an invoice. The complainant also said he had paid Rs 1,200 for a membership linked to the online platform, expecting priority delivery and other benefits.
The man added that he had to buy diapers from local shops at a higher price after the order failed to arrive. Aggrieved, he filed the complaint before the commission.
The courier company, through advocate Naveen A Varkey, argued that it was only responsible for delivering the parcel and that the purchase itself was between the complainant and the online seller. It also claimed that the man had not provided the OTP needed to complete the delivery and that technical problems and other operational difficulties had contributed to the delay.
Story continues below this ad
‘Take corrective measures’
The commission directed the courier company to improve its internal system and ensure that delivery updates are recorded accurately. A parcel should not be marked as “refused by customer” unless there has actually been a delivery attempt and there are records to prove it.
The commission ordered the courier company to pay Rs 15,000 for the inconvenience, mental agony and loss suffered by the man, along with Rs 7,500 towards his legal expenses, within 30 days. If the amount was not paid within that period, it would carry 9 per cent annual interest.
Takeaway
The ruling highlights that a courier company cannot simply mark a parcel as “customer refused” without proof that a delivery was actually attempted.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals can contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Story continues below this ad
Don’t miss out on these stories:
Flight rescheduled but check-in ‘denied’, Delhi man wins Rs 68,000 payout from airline
Man loses Rs 60,000 as card not blocked despite complaint, bank to pay Rs 90,000
9-hour journey on water soaked bus seat, Kerala man wins Rs 14,000 compensation
