Ludhiana: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana has directed two courier and logistics companies to jointly pay ₹30,000 in compensation to a city resident after a mobile phone ordered online was replaced with a tube of facewash.The commission ordered the logistics firms to pay the compensation to complainant Radha Sahani, a resident of Dashmesh Market in Dhandari, Ludhiana, within 30 days of receiving the order copy. The forum dismissed all charges against the online shopping platform.According to the complaint, Sahani booked a mobile phone worth ₹13,058 through an online shopping platform on April 1, 2024. The package was delivered by courier the same day at 6.52 pm.Upon receiving the OTP required for delivery, Sahani asked the delivery agent to open the box on the spot. Sahani discovered that the mobile phone was missing and replaced with a tube of facewash. The delivery agent advised Sahani to lodge an online complaint.Sahani repeatedly contacted the companies to resolve the issue, but the requests were rejected. A legal notice sent on April 10, 2024, also went unanswered. Sahani subsequently filed a complaint seeking delivery of the mobile phone and ₹5,00,000 in compensation for mental and physical harassment.During legal proceedings, one courier company refused the notice and was proceeded against ex-parte.The online shopping platform filed a written statement denying any deficiency of service. It argued that it was only the platform seller who dispatched the product, noting that the seller had not been intentionally made a party to the suit.The second courier company claimed it was solely a logistics service provider with no role in the product’s sale, packaging, or contents, maintaining that the parcel was delivered in its original sealed condition.Key FindingsThe District Consumer Commission observed that despite being informed of the missing phone, the parties shrugged off liability and shifted the onus onto one another, leaving the consumer to suffer harassment. The commission noted that as logistics partners, the courier companies’ employees are expected to inspect ordered items at the warehouse and match them with invoices before sealing packages. “This exercise is conspicuously missing in the present case,” the commission observed, holding the courier firms liable.
