DTDC Express, Channel Partner Held Liable for Missing Art Consignment; Thrissur Commission Awards ₹50,000 Compensation

March 27, 2026 : The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur has held DTDC Express Limited and its channel partner liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver one out of eight boxes entrusted to them, and directed payment of compensation to the complainant.

The Bench comprising President C.T. Sabu and Members Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R. passed the order in Pratheeksha Subin v. J. Anjaneyulu (Channel Partner, DTDC Express Ltd.) & Anr., CC No. 571/2024, under Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Background

The complainant, an artist and founder of “Meraki”, had organised an art exhibition at Chithramayi Art Gallery, Hyderabad, in May 2023. After the exhibition, she dispatched eight boxes of paintings through the opposite parties on 29 May 2023, paying ₹20,000 as courier charges under consignment number D29701117.

However, only seven boxes were delivered on 12 June 2023. Despite repeated follow-ups, emails, and assurances from the courier service, the remaining box was never delivered.

The complainant contended that the missing box contained two paintings worth ₹20,000 each and that the loss caused significant hardship and mental agony.

Proceedings

Despite receiving notice, both opposite parties failed to appear or file any written version. The Commission proceeded ex parte, treating their non-contestation as indicative of admission of the allegations.

Findings

Relying on documentary evidence including the consignment receipt and delivery records, the Commission found:

• Eight boxes were entrusted to the courier service upon payment of charges.
• Only seven boxes were delivered, as confirmed by delivery documents and the complainant’s endorsement.
• The missing consignment (AWB D29701117003) was never delivered.

The Commission held that this clearly established “imperfection” in service and amounted to deficiency in service.

Compensation

On the issue of monetary relief:

• The Commission declined to award ₹40,000 as the value of the paintings due to lack of documentary proof substantiating valuation.
• However, it emphasized that consumers cannot be expected to undertake additional safeguards like insurance or valuation certification unless required by the service provider.

Recognising the mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience suffered, the Commission awarded:

• ₹50,000 as compensation
• ₹5,000 as litigation costs
• Interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till realisation

The opposite parties were directed to comply within 45 days.

Key Takeaway

The ruling reinforces that courier services bear a professional obligation to ensure safe delivery of entrusted goods, and failure to do so, even for a single consignment, constitutes actionable deficiency—irrespective of whether the consumer has insured or formally valued the goods.