The leading electric two-wheeler maker Ola has been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Again! the company is in the news for its faulty battery-powered scooter. Recently, a Bengaluru customer dragged the brand into court, where it was directed to pay a fine of Rs 1.94 lakh for dispatching a defective unit to him.
Panalty
According to the Indian Express, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order date on July 10 asked Ola Electric to refund an amount of Rs 1.62 lakh to a customer named Durgesh Nishad.
The company was also asked to pay the reimbursement amount with a six per cent per annum, starting from the day the complainant made the full payment of the vehicle.
Extra Fine
In addition, Ola Electric was also directed to pay an extra cost of Rs 10,000 as legal fees and a compensation amount of Rs 20,000 for the complainant’s mental suffering and hardship, which he faced throughout the legal battle.
Here’s What Customer Says
The victim in his complaint revealed that he purchased an Ola electric scooter from an authorised showroom at the cost of Rs 1.47 lakh (after deductions). He also paid an extra Rs 16,000 for registration and other charges. After taking the delivery, he realised the scooter was not in good condition as its rear upper panel was damaged, and noticed the non-functional horn
He raised the complaint about the defective unit, asking the brand to repair or exchange the vehicle with a new one. However, his complaint was not taken seriously as the company failed to resolve the issue properly even after multiple reminders by the victim.
Comment by Commsion
When the matter reached to the court, M S Ramachandra, president, the 4th Additional District Forum in Bengaluru commented, “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 Rare upper panel at the time of delivery of the vehicle and acknowledged by the OP (Ola).”
He further said, “The very fact that the brand 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. Despite 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”, as reported by Indian Express.
Comments
0 comment