Archive · 7 Oct 2026
Delhi Commission Orders Movers to Pay Rs 50,000 for Damaged Items
Rajnish Kumar Ahuja hired a company to pack and move his belongings.
He said a box holding his TV fell while workers were packing, and that the TV and shoe rack were damaged.
He wrote about the damage on the delivery note and showed the commission photographs and other documents.
The company disputed responsibility and argued that the TV had not been valued.
The commission noted that the company’s own records listed the TV at Rs 30,000.
It found the evidence of damage had not been answered by the company.
The commission did not accept Ahuja’s separate claim that the delivery was late.
It ordered the company to pay Rs 50,000, including litigation costs.
Rajnish Kumar Ahuja paid Rs 18,050 to move household goods from Naraina Vihar to Gurugram.
He said the television box fell during packing; the television screen and shoe rack were damaged.
A delivery-note entry, photographs and other documents supported his damage claim, the commission said.
The commission rejected the company’s argument that the TV was not valued, noting its records listed it at Rs 30,000.
The company was ordered to pay Rs 50,000, including litigation costs; a separate claim of delayed delivery was rejected.
- Who
- Rajnish Kumar Ahuja and a moving and transportation company.
- What
- A consumer commission ordered the company to pay Rs 50,000 for a damaged television and shoe rack, including litigation costs.
- When
- The order was pronounced on September 16; the move began on October 16, 2023.
- Where
- The goods were moved from Naraina Vihar, Delhi, to Gurugram; the case was heard by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi.
- Why
- The commission found documentary evidence supporting the damage claim unrebutted and held the company deficient in service.
Consumer’s position
Company’s position
Responsibility for damage
Consumer’s position
Ahuja said the TV was working before packing, its box fell during packing, and the TV and shoe rack were damaged; he provided a delivery-note entry and photographs.
Company’s position
The company initially rejected the claim, saying its employees had not caused the TV damage.
TV value and liability
Consumer’s position
Ahuja sought compensation for the damaged items and submitted documents supporting his claim.
Company’s position
The company argued that the TV had not been declared or valued and that its liability was restricted under the Carriage by Road Act; the commission noted its records listed the TV at Rs 30,000.
Alleged delivery delay
Consumer’s position
Ahuja alleged that delivery was promised for October 16 and sought compensation for delay.
Company’s position
The commission found no mention of the alleged delay in the delivery acknowledgement, company emails or National Consumer Helpline complaint, and did not accept this part of the claim.
- Moving charge
- Rs 18,050
- TV value in company records
- Rs 30,000
- Initial repair estimate
- Rs 29,618
- Exchange model offered by service centre
- Rs 44,788
- Company offer
- Rs 15,000 in a legal department letter dated February 6, 2024; the company had earlier offered Rs 10,000
- Award
- Rs 50,000 for the damaged TV and shoe rack, inclusive of litigation costs
- Payment deadline and interest
- One report says payment is due within three months, with 9% annual interest from July 10, 2024, if unpaid; the other report does not provide these terms.
- Delivery-delay claim
- Rejected because the commission found no mention of the alleged delay in the cited records.
