Recently, a consumer court in Bengaluru levied a fine of Rs 1.94 lakh on Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd. This penalty was due to the delivery of a defective electric scooter and the company’s failure to resolve the issue.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Ola Electric to refund Rs 1.62 lakh to Durgesh Nishad with 6 percent annual interest from the payment date until full repayment.
Additionally, the court mandated that Ola pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs.
Consumer’s Complaint
Durgesh Nishad, a resident of R T Nagar in Bengaluru, filed a complaint after receiving a defective Ola S1 Pro scooter. He bought the vehicle on December 12, 2023, paying Rs 1.47 lakh after deductions and Rs 16,000 for registration and other charges. Upon receiving the scooter in January 2024, he noticed damage to the rear upper panel and reported it to Ola Electric, which recorded the issue and stated that the panel needed replacement.
Nishad discovered further defects, including a non-functional horn and panel board display, and reported these problems to the Ola showroom on January 23.
Despite multiple reminders and attempts to have the defects fixed, Ola Electric did not address the issues or provide a working vehicle. This prompted Nishad to take the matter to the consumer court.
Court’s Response to Company Negligence
The court emphasized Ola Electric’s negligence in handling the consumer’s complaints. Due to the company’s failure to repair or replace the defective scooter, the court ordered compensation for Nishad’s financial loss and inconvenience. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for companies to prioritize quality control and customer service.
Words by M S Ramachandra, president, 4th Additional District Forum, Bengaluru,
“The Commission after going through the complaint contents observes that the new vehicle which was delivered to the complainant (Durgesh) on 22.01.2024 has developed several problems like panel board display not functioning, horn failure, and damage to Rare upper panel at the time of delivery of the vehicle and acknowledged by the OP (Ola)”.
“The very fact that the has remained silent to the legal notice of the complainant in itself indicates that the OP is guilty of selling a defective vehicle and consequent deficiency in service by their negligent attitude in attending to the complaint on the vehicle which is brought to its notice. Apart from this despite due service of notice issued by this commission, the OP has neither appeared before this commission nor filed a version in its defense on the allegation of the complainant”.
