NoBroker ordered to pay ₹55,000 over delayed delivery, missing box
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt Ltd to pay ₹45,000 compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs to a consumer over delayed delivery of household goods and a missing box.
The commission passed the order on September 23, 2026, in C.C. No. 166/2026, filed by Venkata Narasimharao Jupudi. He had initially filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Rangareddy. The case was later transferred to Hyderabad.
Goods reached Hyderabad eight days after pickup
Jupudi hired NoBroker to shift his household goods from Wakad in Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, to Hyderabad. The company’s quotation promised delivery within two to three days.
NoBroker picked up the goods on August 12, 2024. According to the shipment tracking record, the vehicle started at 23.32 hours that day. It reached the destination warehouse at 22.20 hours on August 20.
Jupudi alleged that NoBroker demanded an additional ₹24,000 after the number of boxes increased from the initial estimate of 40 to 77. He said he paid ₹81,800 in three instalments.
When the goods arrived, Jupudi found one box missing. He also alleged that a television belonging to another person had arrived with his belongings. He further said parts needed to assemble his bed were missing.
NoBroker denied the allegations. It attributed the delay to restrictions on vehicle entry into Hyderabad. The company also said Jupudi did not insist on bed assembly because of a wedding function at his residence.
The company said it had offered ₹7,500 as compensation as a goodwill gesture. However, Jupudi refused the offer.
Commission rejects NoBroker’s objections
The commission found that NoBroker had not produced enough documents to support its claim about unforeseen circumstances or restrictions in Hyderabad.
The commission also found differences between the terms and conditions in the quotation and those in the consignment note. It noted that Jupudi had not signed the page containing the jurisdiction and delay clauses of the consignment note.
NoBroker argued that it had acted only as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The commission rejected the contention.
According to the commission, the documents showed that Jupudi had subscribed to NoBroker’s services. The company had also arranged the services. The invoices and other documents carried NoBroker’s name.
The commission held that the delay and missing box showed a failure to provide the service promised in the quotation. It treated this as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
However, the commission rejected Jupudi’s demand for a refund of ₹27,600 towards additional charges. It noted that the number of boxes had increased and that NoBroker had informed him about the additional charges.
The commission allowed the complaint in part. It directed NoBroker to pay ₹45,000 compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs within 45 days of receiving the order.
If NoBroker fails to comply, the ₹45,000 compensation will attract 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
