A district consumer court in Kerala has directed EV manufacturer Ola Electric Mobility Limited and its local outlet to pay over Rs 1.6 lakh to a customer after a newly purchased electric scooter experienced recurring technical failures and local service support proved unavailable.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kasaragod ruled that the company committed a gross deficiency in service and engaged in unfair trade practices. The commission ordered a full refund of the vehicle’s purchase price of Rs 1.3 lakh, along with Rs 25,000 in compensation for mental stress and financial hardship, and Rs 5,000 to cover litigation expenses. Both the Bengaluru headquarters and the local Kasaragod dealership were held jointly and severally liable, with a directive to clear the payment within 30 days of receiving the order.
Compensation And Financial Directives
The judgment, issued by a bench comprising Commission President Krishnan K and member Beena K G following a July 30 order, came after the manufacturer failed to respond to legal notices. Official notice was delivered to the Bengaluru-based Ola Electric Mobility Limited on March 5, 2026, but the company did not submit a formal response, leading the forum to decide the matter ex-parte. A separate notice sent to the local outlet in Anangur, Kasaragod, was returned undelivered due to the store’s closure.
The complainant had purchased an Ola S1 Pro Gen 2 Electric Scooter on May 22, 2023, making an initial down payment of Rs 71,259 and financing the remaining balance through a bank loan. In addition to the standard 40,000 km manufacturer warranty, the buyer paid Rs 8,000 for an extended warranty covering up to 80,000 km or eight years.
Vehicle Defects And Service Failures
According to the complaint, the vehicle developed serious operational defects within a few months of purchase. The rear shock absorber malfunctioned repeatedly, and the battery regularly shut off automatically once charge levels dropped below a specific percentage.
Attempts to secure local repairs were unsuccessful. Staff at the nearest service facility in Payyannur stated they were unable to repair the shock absorber, while the Kasaragod dealership subsequently shut down. As a result, the owner was forced to travel approximately 100 km to a service facility in Mangaluru to seek repairs. Due to professional commitments and the ongoing unreliability of the scooter, the owner was eventually forced to purchase a second vehicle, incurring approximately Rs 16,000 in bank loan interest and total estimated losses of Rs 2.5 lakh. The owner submitted an affidavit confirming he no longer intended to use the defective vehicle.
Rulings On Consumer Rights And Warranty Terms
In its findings, the consumer commission highlighted unfair contractual terms within the company’s extended warranty document. Specifically, the commission criticized a clause in which the company reserved the right to alter warranty terms unilaterally at any time.
The panel ruled that businesses cannot shift the burden onto consumers by merely publishing policy updates on official websites and expecting customers to check them regularly. The court declared such practices contrary to consumer rights and legally invalid.
