The received headlights cracked and fell off. Courtesy of respondents
Recently, Mr. He of Hunan Province reported to the surging quality report complaint platform (https://tousu.thepaper.cn) that he used SF Express to send two parcels from Changsha, Hunan to Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, with a total insured price of 10,000 yuan. The recipient reported that one of the couriers was damaged, and he claimed from SF, which did not make compensation on the grounds that he had signed a deductible agreement.
In this regard, the relevant person in charge of SF responded that according to the deductible agreement signed by Mr. He, if the goods are slightly damaged without obvious damage to the outer packaging, SF has no compensation liability, so it will not compensate. Mr. Ho pointed out that it was not a slight bump, but a damage that could not be used, and expressed dissatisfaction with SF's treatment results.
The two headlights sent out are insured for a total of 10,000 yuan. Courtesy of respondents
Consumer Complaints:
According to Mr. He, he sent out two manual samples of the headlights, the courier was sent on November 18 this year, and after the recipient received the goods on November 20, he reported that one of the lamps cracked. He proposed to SF compensation in proportion to the actual proportion of the insured amount. However, SF did not compensate on the grounds that he had signed a deductible agreement when placing the order.
Mr. He said that when he placed an order on the SF APP, he had signed a mandatory "Standard Agreement for Compensation for Specific Consignments (Special-shaped Items)". The agreement contains the following contents: If the courier arrives and there is no obvious abnormality in the outer packaging, but there are scratches, slight damages and other abnormal circumstances in the entrusted goods, SF will not be liable for compensation.
Mr. He said that the headlights received by the recipient were not just slight bumps, but the mask was cracked and could not be used, "so according to the agreement, SF should also compensate me."
Mr. He said he had already negotiated with SF many times before complaining to the surging quality reporting platform. SF initially refused to settle the claim on the grounds that he had signed a deductible agreement. Later, another customer service called and said that they could pay according to the valuation. But soon SF customer service called for the third time, saying that it could only refund the postage. "I don't know why they're doing this." Mr. Ho said.
Corporate Response:
On December 9, the surging news contacted SF Express on this matter, and the relevant person in charge said that only one of the two goods sent by Mr. He was damaged, and the packaging conditions of the two goods should be the same, so there was no problem with the express packaging. The person in charge said that after appraisal, the outer packaging of Mr. He's goods was not obviously damaged, and it was impossible to have a situation where the outer packaging was relatively complete and the inner parts were seriously damaged. At the same time, according to the deductible agreement signed by Mr. He, because there is no obvious damage to the outer packaging of the goods, no claim will be made to Mr. He, and this is the final processing result. Mr. Ho expressed dissatisfaction with this treatment plan, and the two sides have not reached an agreement at present.