When relocating, it is common to consider booking a packers and movers company to get your household items shifted to the new address. But what if you receive the shipment late, with some of your items missing?
Something similar happened with Ms Longchar, who planned to move from Delhi to Nagaland in September 2020 and booked the services of a packers and movers company for shifting her household goods.
Despite paying a total amount of Rs 1.15 lakh, she not only received the delivery late but also found many of her items missing. So, Ms Longchar approached the South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking Rs 7.75 lakh relief from the company.
At the time of loading, the company took full responsibility for any damage or loss of the household products during transportation and guaranteed that the items would be delivered within 2 weeks.
ALSO READ | Builder promised 1,395 sq ft flat, parking, compensation in return for property, then issued notice demanding Rs 30 lakh; landowners win over Rs 1.22 crore relief
However, Ms Longchar didn’t receive all her goods on time and had to wait for one month. She received her car on October 23, 2020, but the household goods arrived on November 19, 2020.
In an even bigger shock, Ms Longchar found out that the cargo truck contained only 70 items out of the 93 items of her household products.
When she told this to the movers, they were allegedly not ready to accept their mistake and, in turn, blamed others. According to Ms Longchar, the movers agreed to pay Rs 25,000 for the damaged AC after a lot of hassle. They also promised to reimburse the damage to other products after delivery of the remaining items.
She was assured that the remaining 23 items would be delivered through courier service, but to date, she has not received any courier.
Aggrieved by this, she requested the Consumer Commission to direct the company to refund Rs 1.15 lakh, pay Rs 4 lakh damages, Rs 1.50 lakh towards losses of finance, Rs 50,000 towards mental tension and trauma and Rs 60,000 towards litigation expenses, totalling Rs 7,75,000.
ALSO READ | Woman applied for 130 shares in Adani Wilmar IPO, bank entered only 65; she sought Rs 40L compensation; gets relief in consumer commission
Urban Company resisted the complaint, saying it provides a managed marketplace for home services, which are provided by independent third-party providers to the buyers/customers. It does not have any liability to pay and/or reimburse any amount.
The commission took note of the documents presented by Ms Longchar, which show that the service rating of the movers is shown to be 4.45 on the website of Urban Company. It said that the lady must have decided to opt for the services after having checked the ratings on Urban Company.
“Hence the plea of OP-3 (Urban Company) that it is merely an intermediary who provides a common platform from where the consumers can engage the services of third party cannot be absolved of its liability,” the panel said.
Since the lady received the AC and LED TV in damaged condition, with many items missing, the commission found the company to be “grossly deficient in service”. With this, it ordered the following:
The order is a timely reminder that a household shift is a contract for service, and the law treats it as one, said Soayib Qureshi, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.
Booking confirmation, proof of payment of Rs 1,15,000 and photographs substantiated the damage and non-delivery. Urban Company’s published 4.45 service rating supported the finding of unfair trade practice through misleading representation, added Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.
“The transporter’s failure to contest the proceedings left the evidence unrebutted.”
-a written quotation or agreement stating the charges, the delivery timeline and the mover's liability for loss or damage;
-a detailed inventory signed by the mover, listing each item and its condition; and
-the consignment note (lorry receipt) bearing the vehicle number and the mover's particulars, explained Qureshi.
Additionally, obtain a consignment note or lorry receipt establishing entrustment and custody, insurance documentation specifying coverage and exclusions, and receipts evidencing payment, according to Razvi. The transporter’s registration particulars and grievance-redressal mechanism should also be recorded.
Photographic evidence of goods before loading strengthens the evidentiary record.
Moreover, the value of the goods should be declared in writing and transit insurance taken. Qureshi pointed out that it is prudent to verify that the mover is registered as a common carrier under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, and to note its GST number and address.
Under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, such notice must be served on the carrier within 180 days of booking, though early notice is always advisable.
If the dispute remains unresolved, the consumer may approach the National Consumer Helpline (1915) or file a complaint before the District Consumer Commission, which hears matters where the consideration paid is up to Rs 50 lakh. The complaint can be filed online, where the consumer resides or works, within two years of the cause of action.
Ms Longchar’s case makes one point plain: in consumer disputes, the party with the paperwork usually prevails.
Something similar happened with Ms Longchar, who planned to move from Delhi to Nagaland in September 2020 and booked the services of a packers and movers company for shifting her household goods.
Despite paying a total amount of Rs 1.15 lakh, she not only received the delivery late but also found many of her items missing. So, Ms Longchar approached the South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking Rs 7.75 lakh relief from the company.
Packers and movers delay delivery, lost items
In September 2020, the lady booked the moving company's services through the Urban Company. The items loaded were in the company’s truck on September 20, 2026 to be shifted to Dimapur (Nagaland), and included home appliances, electronic gadgets, furniture, fixtures, etc. and her car.At the time of loading, the company took full responsibility for any damage or loss of the household products during transportation and guaranteed that the items would be delivered within 2 weeks.
You Might Also Like:
ALSO READ | Builder promised 1,395 sq ft flat, parking, compensation in return for property, then issued notice demanding Rs 30 lakh; landowners win over Rs 1.22 crore relief
However, Ms Longchar didn’t receive all her goods on time and had to wait for one month. She received her car on October 23, 2020, but the household goods arrived on November 19, 2020.
In an even bigger shock, Ms Longchar found out that the cargo truck contained only 70 items out of the 93 items of her household products.
Items damaged during transportation
The lady claimed that the AC was delivered in broken condition, which is beyond repair and the LED TV was also damaged. While unpacking, she found that many goods like crockery, utensils, electronic appliances, electrical products, etc. were delivered broken.When she told this to the movers, they were allegedly not ready to accept their mistake and, in turn, blamed others. According to Ms Longchar, the movers agreed to pay Rs 25,000 for the damaged AC after a lot of hassle. They also promised to reimburse the damage to other products after delivery of the remaining items.
She was assured that the remaining 23 items would be delivered through courier service, but to date, she has not received any courier.
Aggrieved by this, she requested the Consumer Commission to direct the company to refund Rs 1.15 lakh, pay Rs 4 lakh damages, Rs 1.50 lakh towards losses of finance, Rs 50,000 towards mental tension and trauma and Rs 60,000 towards litigation expenses, totalling Rs 7,75,000.
ALSO READ | Woman applied for 130 shares in Adani Wilmar IPO, bank entered only 65; she sought Rs 40L compensation; gets relief in consumer commission
What did the consumer panel find?
Notices were issued to the moving company and Urban Company, but no one appeared on behalf of packers and movers.Urban Company resisted the complaint, saying it provides a managed marketplace for home services, which are provided by independent third-party providers to the buyers/customers. It does not have any liability to pay and/or reimburse any amount.
The commission took note of the documents presented by Ms Longchar, which show that the service rating of the movers is shown to be 4.45 on the website of Urban Company. It said that the lady must have decided to opt for the services after having checked the ratings on Urban Company.
“Hence the plea of OP-3 (Urban Company) that it is merely an intermediary who provides a common platform from where the consumers can engage the services of third party cannot be absolved of its liability,” the panel said.
Since the lady received the AC and LED TV in damaged condition, with many items missing, the commission found the company to be “grossly deficient in service”. With this, it ordered the following:
- Movers are directed to pay Rs 3 lakh towards compensation for providing deficient services, damaged and missing household goods.
- Urban Company is directed to pay Rs 50,000 compensation towards mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.
- Both are directed to pay the above amount within 3 months from the date of order.
The order is a timely reminder that a household shift is a contract for service, and the law treats it as one, said Soayib Qureshi, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.
What helped the lady win in this case?
Consumer cases are decided on documents. The decisive one here was the inventory of 93 items, prepared on the mover's own letterhead at the time of loading and recording that the goods were in good condition. That single document established both the quantity entrusted and its condition, leaving the mover to account for the 23 missing items and the damage, Qureshi told ET Wealth Online.Booking confirmation, proof of payment of Rs 1,15,000 and photographs substantiated the damage and non-delivery. Urban Company’s published 4.45 service rating supported the finding of unfair trade practice through misleading representation, added Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.
“The transporter’s failure to contest the proceedings left the evidence unrebutted.”
What paperwork should you insist on before sending your goods via packers and movers
Crucially, obtain these 3 things:-a written quotation or agreement stating the charges, the delivery timeline and the mover's liability for loss or damage;
-a detailed inventory signed by the mover, listing each item and its condition; and
-the consignment note (lorry receipt) bearing the vehicle number and the mover's particulars, explained Qureshi.
Additionally, obtain a consignment note or lorry receipt establishing entrustment and custody, insurance documentation specifying coverage and exclusions, and receipts evidencing payment, according to Razvi. The transporter’s registration particulars and grievance-redressal mechanism should also be recorded.
Photographic evidence of goods before loading strengthens the evidentiary record.
Moreover, the value of the goods should be declared in writing and transit insurance taken. Qureshi pointed out that it is prudent to verify that the mover is registered as a common carrier under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, and to note its GST number and address.
What can I do if my goods arrive late, damaged or missing?
At delivery, record any shortage or damage on the delivery receipt rather than sign it unconditionally, and document the unpacking. A written notice of loss or damage should then be served on the mover, and on the platform if the booking was made through one, said Qureshi.Under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, such notice must be served on the carrier within 180 days of booking, though early notice is always advisable.
If the dispute remains unresolved, the consumer may approach the National Consumer Helpline (1915) or file a complaint before the District Consumer Commission, which hears matters where the consideration paid is up to Rs 50 lakh. The complaint can be filed online, where the consumer resides or works, within two years of the cause of action.
Ms Longchar’s case makes one point plain: in consumer disputes, the party with the paperwork usually prevails.
(Join our ETWealth WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)