
消费者在寄送快递时购买保价服务后,货物运损时与快递公司在赔偿标准上产生纠纷。快递企业根据折旧等因素压低赔付,而消费者认为足额保价应获全额赔偿。专家指出,保价规则复杂、举证难和赔偿标准模糊是纠纷根源,建议明确定损机制并加强消费者教育。
AI-generated summary
快递保价服务是快递企业推出的保障服务,旨在让消费者买得安心并分担运输风险。但实践中,消费者在寄送贵重物品时购买保价后,货物运损时常与快递公司在赔偿标准上产生分歧。
快递保价服务是快递企业推出的一种保障服务,既能让消费者买得安心,也能分担快递企业运输风险。然而,不少读者在人民网“人民投诉”反映,寄送快递时进行保价,货物出现运损后,在赔偿问题上出现纠纷。
7月22日,李先生通过物流邮寄了一台55英寸液晶电视,自黑龙江寄往山东,在寄件时除支付运费外,额外花费12元购买2000元足额保价服务。结果,快件送达后屏幕完全碎裂,无法正常使用。
“我第一时间联系物流客服发起理赔,电视实际价值1500元、快递运费100元,就要求赔付1600元,但与物流客服多次协商无果。对方以财务规定、物品折旧为借口压低赔偿,仅同意赔付1000元。”李先生认为,快件购买的是足额保价,运输中货损属于承运方责任,物流拒绝全额赔偿,侵害了自己的合法权益。
同样,广东清远市的宋先生从河北向广东快递运输一台全新热水器,托运时选择足额保价,保价金额5000元。热水器送到时出现严重破损。“我提交了完整开箱视频、破损实拍图、物品价值票据等全套材料,但快递企业仅同意赔付1500元。”宋先生说。
保价金额是否等于赔偿金额?根据《快递暂行条例》规定,快件延误、丢失、损毁或者内件短少的,对保价的快件,应当按照经营快递业务的企业与寄件人约定的保价规则确定赔偿责任。因此,当保价快件损毁、灭失时,应当按照寄件人与快递公司约定的保价规则进行赔偿,并非消费者理解的“保多少赔多少”。
“也就是说,保价货物出现运损需结合货物实际价值、损坏程度、残值等因素综合认定。不可否认,这给快递企业在赔付金额上带来了裁量空间,也是一些纠纷产生的原因所在。”中山大学管理学院教授庞隽说。
记者查阅信息发现,目前,快递企业推出的保价服务分为足额保价和不足额保价,前者为保价金额大于或等于货物实际价值,赔付规则按实际损失金额赔偿,最高不超过保价金额。后者保价金额小于货物实际价值,赔付规则为按比例赔付,实际赔付通常低于保价额。
对此,一家大型快递企业做了举例说明:张小姐寄递一部全新手机,官网售价4000元。假设邮递过程屏幕损坏,在足额保的情况下,官方维修价2000元,理赔方案为2000元维修费加15%折旧费600元,即赔付总额为2600元;不足额保的情况下,仅赔付2000元维修费。
在实践中,举证定损正是消费者与快递公司的纠纷焦点。“在快递企业的赔付规则中,维修费、折旧费是快递企业自己定的,消费者不一定认同。同时,有些货物运损后,在快递企业看来可以维修,在消费者看来已经没有使用价值。”庞隽说,近年来这类纠纷屡见不鲜,暴露出保价规则复杂难懂、举证定损难度大、赔偿标准模糊不清等问题。
“快递公司也有难处。”一名业内人士说,“目前保价服务的保费普遍比较低,比如1元保500元甚至1000元,如果每个都按保价金额来赔付,快递企业承受不了。但是又不能把保费提升太多,比如200元保500元,消费者肯定不接受。”“这就决定了即使足额保的情况下,只要没有整体灭失,就会尽量按损失比例赔付,而非全额赔付。”他说。
此外,他还透露,快递公司对消费者的解释确实有欠缺:“一般快递员上门收快递,不会跟消费者解释一两块保价费和最终赔付的相关规则。”
专家建议,有关部门应当对快递行业的定损机制和定损举证行为进行细化明确,比如,对运损货物,不能任凭快递企业按照复杂且不透明的计算公式“按破损部分比例折算”,而应充分考虑消费者对“按声明价值赔偿”的诉求。同时,对消费者“举证难”的问题也应进行统一规范保障。
今年6月,中国快递协会发布了《快件保价服务》团体标准。尽管该标准不具备法律强制力,但通过统一服务规范,打破了以往快递企业在理赔中“既当运动员又当裁判员”的局面,有助于减少快递企业与消费者之间的纠纷。
专家提醒,消费者在寄件时,对于保价条款尤其是用红色、加粗等特殊字体标明的格式条款,要认真阅读,避免自己的权益受到侵害。同时,快递企业应加强对从业人员的培训,在收寄快递过程中严格履行验视制度、服务条款及保价规则的提示及说明义务,减少消费者因误解产生的纠纷。
本报记者 赵兵
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
监管部门将推动快递保价赔偿标准的统一制定
Likely · Within months

The Supreme People's Court, the People's Bank of China, the State Administration of Financial Supervision, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly released six typical cases on the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and investors, covering financial lending, fund management, digital finance, personal insurance, securities investment and other fields, focusing on hot topics such as format clauses, fair transactions, suitability obligations, rights relief, and diversified dispute resolution, demonstrating the value of financial trials in guiding the high-quality development of the industry.

Pan Liang, a former deputy ministerial cadre of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, was suspected of accepting bribes and using his influence to accept bribes. After investigation by the National Supervisory Commission, he was transferred to the procuratorate for review and prosecution. The Supreme People's Procuratorate has made the arrest decision and designated the Huaibei City People's Procuratorate of Anhui Province to review and prosecute. Recently, the Huaibei Municipal People's Procuratorate has filed a public prosecution with the Huaibei Municipal Intermediate People's Court, accusing Pan Liang of taking advantage of his position to seek benefits for others and illegally receiving huge amounts of property.

The State Administration for Market Regulation revised the draft Food Safety Law and adjusted the fines for small violations from fixed amounts to multiples to solve the problem of "heavy fines for small violations" and reflect the concept that law enforcement must be both strong and warm.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberation of the Constitutional Court for more than 300 days because they did not meet the "10 plus 9" threshold. After the judgment, they still issued negative legal opinions with the title of justice. Scholars Zhang Jiayin and Su Yantu pointed out that this behavior violated the ethics of judges and weakened the authority of the Constitutional Court. They warned that if it continues for a long time, it will affect its final judgment function.

Constitutional Court Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the review because they believed that the composition of the five-member court was illegal. However, after the judgment, they still issued legal opinions in the name of the justices arguing that the judgment was invalid. They contradicted the official judgment, causing confusion among the people and shaking judicial credibility. They also warned that if it became a routine, it would undermine judicial consistency standards and procedural justice.

The three chief justices of the Constitutional Court, Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei, refused to participate in the review for more than 300 days because they did not meet the legal review threshold. However, they later issued a "disagreeing legal opinion" in their own name and published it in "Taiwan Lawyer" and authorized Legal Source Legal Network to collect royalties. At the same time, they still used judicial terms such as the title of justice and "this seat", which triggered a controversy over judicial ethics and copyright property rights. Judicial circles have reported and requested investigation.