Gadag Consumer Commission Rejects Complaint Against Purenergy: No Proof Of Manufacturing Defect Without Expert Report
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gadag, comprising A.G. Maldar (President) and Yashoda B. Patil (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint against Purenergy Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of Pure Electric vehicles, holding that the complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect in his vehicle. The Commission observed that without an expert report, allegations of defect could not be sustained, especially when the complainant had also failed to comply with mandatory warranty conditions.
Background of the case
The complainant, Shivakashayya G. Gaddagimath, purchased an electric vehicle manufactured by Purenergy Pvt. Ltd. and delivered by Irio Groups, after paying ₹74,999/-. He also obtained insurance coverage from Go Digit General Insurance for a five-year period by paying ₹2,847. According to the complainant, the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects from the very beginning.
He alleged that despite repeated requests, the opposite parties neither refunded the amount nor replaced the vehicle. On 14 September 2023, when the vehicle failed to start, he requested the seller to provide home service, which was denied. He then personally handed over the battery for repair, but it was neither repaired nor returned.
The complainant further submitted that he had repeatedly contacted the seller through WhatsApp chats, where he was assured that the issue would be resolved, but no action was taken. He later served a legal notice on 13 March 2024. He also alleged that the seller admitted to a fault in the battery via WhatsApp and even demanded ₹30,000/- for replacement. As a result, he filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer and seller.
Submissions of the Opposite Parties
Purenergy Pvt. Ltd. denied all allegations, contending that the vehicle and its batteries were manufactured in compliance with Automotive Industry Standards (AIS-156) and certified by the International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT). It argued that the complainant had failed to undertake mandatory free services, which were critical under the warranty policy for proper upkeep of the vehicle.
The manufacturer also referred to the Standard Owner’s Manual, which provided safety instructions and charging protocols that were explained to the complainant at the time of purchase. It claimed that the complainant had failed to disclose whether he adhered to proper charging cycles. On this ground, it was argued that the warranty conditions were not fulfilled and thus not applicable.
Further, the manufacturer argued that a claim of manufacturing defect requires proper analysis by an authorised laboratory as per the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In the absence of such an expert report, no allegation of manufacturing defect could be sustained. They further alleged that the vehicle’s performance issues were more consistent with negligence in maintenance rather than a factory defect.
Findings of the Commission
After considering the evidence and arguments, the Commission noted that the complainant had not availed mandatory services during the warranty period, which was essential for upkeep and continued warranty coverage. The Commission emphasised that under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, when a defect cannot be determined without laboratory analysis, the complainant must provide an expert report from a recognised laboratory.
The Bench observed:“Mere stating that the vehicle is having problem from the date of purchase is not sufficient to hold that the vehicle is defective. The complainant has not produced any expert report to substantiate the alleged defect.” The Commission further pointed out that the complainant had been using the vehicle for nearly two years before alleging manufacturing defects, which weakened the credibility of his claim. It also noted that the allegations were vague, without identification of any specific defect in the motor, battery, or vehicle design.
The Bench concluded that the complainant had failed to prove either a defect in the vehicle or any deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Accordingly, there was no basis to order refund or replacement of the vehicle.
Holding that the complaint lacked merit due to the absence of expert evidence and non-compliance with warranty obligations, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gadag, dismissed the complaint filed against Purenergy Pvt. Ltd. and Irio Groups.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Smt. S.B. Shreegiri, Advocate
For the Opponents: Shri. D G Merawade, Advocate
Cause Title: Shivakashayya V. Managing Director, Purenergy Pvt Ltd
Case No: Complaint Number 145/2024
Coram: A.G. Maldar [President], Yashoda B. Patil [Member]
