Core Points - A consumer reported that her fragile porcelain dinnerware set, valued at over 3000 yuan, was severely damaged during shipment via Debon Express, despite paying for insurance and requesting additional protective packaging [1][6][14] - The initial compensation offered by Debon was significantly lower than the insured value, leading to a complicated claims process [14][39] - Similar complaints from other consumers indicate a pattern of inadequate compensation and poor customer service from Debon Express [28][40] Group 1: Incident Details - The consumer, Ms. Li, sent a set of Chaozhou porcelain dinnerware from Jieyang to Shenzhen on October 11, 2025, with a declared value of 3000 yuan and an additional insurance fee of 12 yuan [1][14] - Upon arrival, the dinnerware was found to be damaged, with multiple pieces broken, and the outer packaging lacked sufficient protection [3][8] - The delivery staff attributed the damage to various factors, including potential drops or pressure from heavy objects during transit [8] Group 2: Claims Process - Ms. Li faced challenges in the claims process, initially being asked to pay 41 yuan in shipping fees before her claim could be processed [14] - After submitting her claim, she was offered only 80 yuan in compensation, which was later increased to 200 yuan after further complaints, but still fell short of the insured amount [14][39] - The customer service representatives did not provide clear explanations for the compensation amounts, leading to frustration for Ms. Li [15][39] Group 3: Legal and Consumer Rights - Ms. Li cited relevant regulations, including the Express Delivery Interim Regulations and the Civil Code, to demand full compensation based on the current market price of 3800 yuan for the dinnerware set [27][40] - Legal experts indicated that Debon's compensation rules may lack legal validity and could be seen as unfair to consumers, particularly regarding the lack of transparency in the claims process [40][41] - Consumers are advised to seek various avenues for dispute resolution, including consumer associations and legal action, when facing similar issues [42]

"保价9000只赔500"的消息引发关注，几乎每隔一段时间，快递保价话题就会冲上热搜。 然而，看似这一赔偿规则是快递企业强加给用户的"霸王条款"，但实际情况又复杂得多，在快递业务量迅猛增长的背景下，目前行业尚无完善的快递保价 理赔机制，长期忽视的这一问题并没有得到系统性讨论与重视。 无奈之下，快递企业只好按照自己的产品属性，设计相关的保价规则。早期更简单的制度设计，使我国快递企业得以高效、高速发展，向消费者提供了几 乎全世界性价比最高的快递服务。 亿豹网获悉，保价并非保险，亦不在银保监会约束监管之下。面对日均动辄数千万的业务量，快递企业更倾向于设计有利于自己的理赔机制，能不能赔、 如何赔、赔多少，并没有相关的法律法规。如果用户不满意，协商未成的情况下，消费者只有通过法律途径解决争端。 这些案例大多指向同一个痛点：寄件人支付了保价费，货物在运输途中损毁或丢失，而快递公司要么拒绝赔付，要么赔偿金额远低于保价额或实际价值。 如何认定损失，成为横亘在消费者与快递公司之间的鸿沟。 需要指出的是，保价不同于保险，保价赔偿完全是由快递企业从已收取的保价款中支付，这种自筹的方式显然会带给企业较大压力。被用户吐槽的"保了 少赔 ...

央广网北京7月27日消息（总台中国之声记者管昕）据中央广播电视总台中国之声《新闻纵横》报道，快递服务已成为我们生活中不可或缺的一部分。 但随着业务量的激增和邮寄物品的多元化，快递在包装、运输过程中存在损坏和丢失的风险，由此引发的纠纷也日益增多。"万元电脑运输损坏保价两千只 赔两百"等类似话题，曾多次登上热搜，引发网友热议。 不少消费者面临同样的痛点：寄件人支付了保价费，货物在运输途中损毁或丢失，快递公司的赔偿金额远低于保价额或实际价值。面对快递行业"保了 少赔、不保不赔"的现象，如何优化定损和举证规则，破解快递理赔困局？ 本月7日，上海的吴女士在某二手交易平台上卖出一架古筝，成交价为150元。吴女士称，寄出古筝时有背包，外壳纸板完好，保价500元。7月9日，买 家收货后发现，纸板有破损，导致古筝琴弦断裂，琴面也有破损。 买家给吴女士的反馈 吴女士说："寄的时候我都有拍照片录视频，我怕有纠纷，寄出去以后，我特地保价，因为是古筝，比较容易破损，所以就保价了500元。到了客户家 里，古筝就是发生了断裂。" | 订单编号 | 46. 17 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 25 - 1 | | --- | --- | | ...