A consumer court in Bengaluru has recently fined Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd Rs 1.94 lakh for delivering a defective electric scooter to a customer and failing to address the issue.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its July 10 order, instructed Ola Electric to refund Rs 1.62 lakh to Durgesh Nishad, with 6 percent interest per annum from the date of payment until the full amount is refunded. Additionally, the commission ordered Ola to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for the mental agony and hardship experienced by the complainant and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs.
Nishad, a resident of R T Nagar in Bengaluru, filed a complaint alleging that Ola had delivered a defective vehicle and did not repair or replace it. He purchased the Ola SN Pro on December 12, 2023, paying Rs 1.47 lakh after deductions and Rs 16,000 for registration and other charges.
Upon delivery in January, he noticed damage to the rear upper panel of the vehicle and reported it to Ola Electric, which recorded the issue as “Rear Upper panel damage. Need to be replaced.” After taking delivery, Nishad also found other defects, including a non-functional horn and panel board display, and reported these issues to the Ola showroom on January 23. Despite frequent reminders, the company failed to address the problems.
M S Ramachandra, president of the 4th Additional District Forum in Bengaluru, said, “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 Rear upper panel at the time of delivery of the vehicle and acknowledged by the OP (Ola).”
He added, “The very fact that the OP 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 in spite of due service of notice issued by this commission, the OP has neither appeared before this commission nor filed a version in its defence on the allegation of the complainant.”