Pranav B Prem

The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer jointly liable for selling an electric scooter with a manufacturing defect and failing to provide proper after-sales support. The Bench comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S (Member) and Ram Mohan R (Member) delivered its final order on October 27, 2025, directing replacement of the defective vehicle and awarding compensation to the complainant.

Also Read: Delhi Consumer Commission Directs Lenovo To Pay ₹45,000 For Selling Defective Laptop And Failing To Resolve Repeated Issues

The complainant, Arjunan K.R., who works as a collection agent with KSFE, purchased an OLA S1 X Plus electric scooter from the OLA Experience Centre in Thrissur. He made a down payment of ₹50,594 on December 31, 2023, and the remaining ₹56,406 was financed through a vehicle loan from Tata Capital Ltd., repayable through monthly instalments of ₹5,486. The vehicle was delivered on February 21, 2024, and registered as KL 75 D 3728. According to the complainant, he relied on the dealer’s assurance of defect-free performance and the 36-month warranty provided by the manufacturer.

Soon after purchase, the scooter began exhibiting recurrent faults, including frequent breakdowns that forced the complainant to rely on autorickshaws for work-related travel. Despite several visits to the service centre at Peramangalam, the scooter was not effectively repaired. It broke down mid-ride on 30 April 2024 and again on 22 June 2024. Alleging a manufacturing defect, the complainant sought replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price, along with compensation for the difficulties caused.

The Commission recorded that although notices were duly served, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer appeared before the forum or filed their written version. Consequently, both were proceeded against ex parte. The complainant produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibits A1 to A8, including payment records, warranty documents, and communication history. An Expert Commissioner was also appointed, whose report (Exhibit C1) formed a crucial part of the evidence.

Also Read: Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds Oriental Insurance Guilty of Unjustified Claim Repudiation; Orders Reimbursement and Compensation

On examining the materials, the Commission noted that the scooter had indeed been taken for repairs multiple times in a short span, clearly establishing faulty functioning. The expert report revealed that the Human Machine Interface (HMI) of the scooter suffered from an innate manufacturing defect, rendering the vehicle unfit for use. The digital instrument cluster display was also found non-operational during inspection on 1 January 2025, and the report indicated that the HMI and the cluster must function together for the scooter to operate. The Commission observed that the vehicle “turned unworthy of use in less than one year of its registration”

Although the complainant claimed the purchase price to be ₹1,07,000, the Commission noted that he had produced no document to prove the full amount other than the down payment. No purchase invoice was filed. Therefore, while holding that the scooter indeed suffered from a manufacturing defect, the Commission confined the relief to replacement of the vehicle rather than refund of its alleged full cost.

On the question of liability, the Commission held that sale of a defective vehicle amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It emphasised that the dealer had a duty to coordinate with the manufacturer to resolve the consumer’s grievance and could not act merely as a point of collection of money. The dealer’s refusal to accept notice and the failure of both opposite parties to submit their written version were treated as admission of the allegations.

Also Read: Enhanced Coverage Not Applicable at Time of Surgery; Karnataka Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Oriental Insurance

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed OLA Electric Technologies to replace the defective scooter with a new one of the same or equivalent model. Additionally, both the manufacturer and dealer were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship suffered by the complainant, and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

Cause Title: Arjunan K.R vs OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: CC 407/24

Coram: C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S (Member), Ram Mohan R (Member)