NEW DELHI: A consumer commission in Kerala has held Ola Electric guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a customer’s electric scooter developed repeated problems during the warranty period and he failed to get proper after-sales service.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod, directed Ola Electric to refund Rs 1,03,999 paid for the scooter, along with Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards the cost of the complaint, in its order dated July 30.Why did the customer approach the consumer commission?According to the commission’s order, Jithin G.A. purchased an Ola S1 Pro Gen 2 electric scooter from the company’s Kasaragod outlet by paying Rs 71,259 as down payment and arranging a bank loan for the remaining amount.The complainant had a warranty of 40,000 km and an additional warranty plan. He said he could use the scooter only for a few months before its rear shock absorber developed a fault. When he approached the nearest service centre at Payyannur, he was informed that the problem could not be repaired.He was then forced to travel to the Mangalore showroom, around 100 km away, to get the scooter repaired. According to the complaint, the service centres in Kasaragod, Kannur and Mangalore later stopped functioning.The complainant further said the scooter’s battery would automatically shut off once it dropped below a certain percentage and that the rear shock absorber became faulty again. He said he had to use recovery vehicles to reach charging points and that the scooter was no longer usable.He alleged that he suffered financial loss, mental stress and other difficulties because of the defects and lack of service. He said he did not want to use the scooter in future and sought Rs 2 lakh as compensation and Rs 50,000 as damages.Notice sent to the Ola outlet in Kasaragod was returned with the remark that the addressee had left and the shop was closed. Notice to Ola Electric Mobility Limited was served on March 5, 2026, but the company did not appear before the commission or file a reply. It was therefore proceeded against ex parte.Why was Ola Electric ordered to refund the scooter’s cost?The bench comprising President Krishnan K and Member Beena K.G. noted that the scooter had developed defects within a short period of purchase. It examined the purchase invoice, extended warranty certificate and order booking form submitted by the complainant.The commission also considered the terms of the extended warranty, under which Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd had reserved the right to change the warranty terms at any time and required customers to check its website for changes.“In Ext.A2 it is mentioned that Ola electric technologies Pvt Ltd reserves the right to change any of the terms and conditions of these warranty terms at any time, amounts to unfair trade practice which is against consumer rights,” the commission observed.It further noted that the complainant had not received proper service after reporting the defects during the warranty period. The commission also took note of the service-centre issue in Kasaragod, observing that customers were being forced to approach the Mangalore service centre, which was around 100 km away.“In the present case also, the complainant was not availed proper service on reporting defects during warranty period,” the commission said.The commission noted that the scooter was in a useless condition and that the complainant did not intend to use it in future as the defects had not been cured during the warranty period. In the absence of any evidence from the opposite parties to counter the complaint, it held that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.“Ext.A2 confirms the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the absence of contra evidence there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party,” the commission observed.The commission noted that the purchase invoice showed that the complainant had paid Rs 1,03,999 for the scooter. Since he did not intend to use the vehicle in future and the defects had not been cured during the warranty period, it held that he was entitled to a refund of the purchase amount along with compensation and costs.Holding Ola Electric responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the company to refund Rs 1,03,999, pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards the cost of the complaint within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. It held the two opposite parties jointly and severally liable for the amount.
