Bought an OLA electric scooter. Trouble in 10 days. Justice after two years.
Poornima of Veeravanallur in Tirunelveli bought an electric scooter from OLA on January 14, 2024, paying Rs 1,19,999.
Within just 10 days, the scooter began giving trouble and failed to start properly.
Instead of fixing the issue, the showroom & the company advised prolonged charging. The problem continued. The scooter broke down repeatedly on the road, and Poornima had to push it home several times, despite it being brand new.
In July 2024, the scooter stopped functioning completely as the battery failed to charge. It was taken to the service centre in a goods vehicle, where the battery was declared defective.
Though the battery carried a 36-month warranty, the showroom & the company allegedly refused replacement. Left with no option, Poornima approached the Tirunelveli District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The consumer forum held the company guilty of deficiency in service and ordered a Refund of Rs 1,19,999 & take back product.
Rs 25,000 compensation for mental agony.
Rs 10,000 litigation cost Payment to be made within 45 days, failing which 9% interest applies.
#Brahmin_Political_Party #devacmdjbe #DevaJobPortal #SaiDevGroup #SaiSudhaDevaTrust
![Brahmin_Political_Party - DEFECTIVE SCOOTER Forum orders EV firm to pay &I.2L to customer EXPRESS NENNS SERVICE the vehicle unusable Subse- quently the vehicle was de- Tirunelveli clared defective at & service THE District Consumer Dis centre; and the firm advised & putes Redressal Commission replacement However; Poorni- recently ordereda private elec- ma alleged that the manufac turer refused to replace battery tric vehicle (EV) manufacturer] 10 refund the total cost of an under warranty despite aSSLL - ances of a36month warranty electric scooter 71.19lakh ing to a consumer and pay an ad- Arter examlin the evi- dence the forum $ president M ditional <35,000 towards com] pensation and litigation Piravi Perumal and member P expenses, holding the firm Shanmuga Priya concluded guilty of deficiency in service that there was & clez" delicien | According to the order; with- Cyin service on the part of the in the 10 days of the purchase On January 20, the EV tirm Of the vchicle on January 14, commission directed the firIl to refund the entire purchase 2021, froIl showroom in ೩ Palayamkottai complainant D amount to the complainantand Poornima 01 Veeravanallur take back the detective vehicle faced issues including difficul Also, it ordered a payment of 725,000 as compensation for ty in powering on, for which mental agony and inconven- the firm allegedly advised pro- longed charging instead of rec ience caused to the customer and <10,000 towards litigation ing tify the detect The issues persisted despite repeated com costs It said that the amount plaints and the vehicle alleg should be paid within 45 days; edly broke down multiple times failing compliance,theamount on the road In July २०२४, the would attract 9%0 of interest battery failed to charge, leaving per annum until realisation DEFECTIVE SCOOTER Forum orders EV firm to pay &I.2L to customer EXPRESS NENNS SERVICE the vehicle unusable Subse- quently the vehicle was de- Tirunelveli clared defective at & service THE District Consumer Dis centre; and the firm advised & putes Redressal Commission replacement However; Poorni- recently ordereda private elec- ma alleged that the manufac turer refused to replace battery tric vehicle (EV) manufacturer] 10 refund the total cost of an under warranty despite aSSLL - ances of a36month warranty electric scooter 71.19lakh ing to a consumer and pay an ad- Arter examlin the evi- dence the forum $ president M ditional <35,000 towards com] pensation and litigation Piravi Perumal and member P expenses, holding the firm Shanmuga Priya concluded guilty of deficiency in service that there was & clez" delicien | According to the order; with- Cyin service on the part of the in the 10 days of the purchase On January 20, the EV tirm Of the vchicle on January 14, commission directed the firIl to refund the entire purchase 2021, froIl showroom in ೩ Palayamkottai complainant D amount to the complainantand Poornima 01 Veeravanallur take back the detective vehicle faced issues including difficul Also, it ordered a payment of 725,000 as compensation for ty in powering on, for which mental agony and inconven- the firm allegedly advised pro- longed charging instead of rec ience caused to the customer and <10,000 towards litigation ing tify the detect The issues persisted despite repeated com costs It said that the amount plaints and the vehicle alleg should be paid within 45 days; edly broke down multiple times failing compliance,theamount on the road In July २०२४, the would attract 9%0 of interest battery failed to charge, leaving per annum until realisation - ShareChat](https://cdn4.sharechat.com/bd5223f_s1w/compressed_gm_40_img_522372_2fb9af2_1769418521084_sc.jpg?tenant=sc&referrer=pwa-sharechat-service&f=084_sc.jpg "Brahmin_Political_Party - DEFECTIVE SCOOTER Forum orders EV firm to pay &I.2L to customer EXPRESS NENNS SERVICE the vehicle unusable Subse- quently the vehicle was de- Tirunelveli clared defective at & service THE District Consumer Dis centre; and the firm advised & putes Redressal Commission replacement However; Poorni- recently ordereda private elec- ma alleged that the manufac turer refused to replace battery tric vehicle (EV) manufacturer] 10 refund the total cost of an under warranty despite aSSLL - ances of a36month warranty electric scooter 71.19lakh ing to a consumer and pay an ad- Arter examlin the evi- dence the forum $ president M ditional <35,000 towards com] pensation and litigation Piravi Perumal and member P expenses, holding the firm Shanmuga Priya concluded guilty of deficiency in service that there was & clez\" delicien | According to the order; with- Cyin service on the part of the in the 10 days of the purchase On January 20, the EV tirm Of the vchicle on January 14, commission directed the firIl to refund the entire purchase 2021, froIl showroom in ೩ Palayamkottai complainant D amount to the complainantand Poornima 01 Veeravanallur take back the detective vehicle faced issues including difficul Also, it ordered a payment of 725,000 as compensation for ty in powering on, for which mental agony and inconven- the firm allegedly advised pro- longed charging instead of rec ience caused to the customer and <10,000 towards litigation ing tify the detect The issues persisted despite repeated com costs It said that the amount plaints and the vehicle alleg should be paid within 45 days; edly broke down multiple times failing compliance,theamount on the road In July २०२४, the would attract 9%0 of interest battery failed to charge, leaving per annum until realisation DEFECTIVE SCOOTER Forum orders EV firm to pay &I.2L to customer EXPRESS NENNS SERVICE the vehicle unusable Subse- quently the vehicle was de- Tirunelveli clared defective at & service THE District Consumer Dis centre; and the firm advised & putes Redressal Commission replacement However; Poorni- recently ordereda private elec- ma alleged that the manufac turer refused to replace battery tric vehicle (EV) manufacturer] 10 refund the total cost of an under warranty despite aSSLL - ances of a36month warranty electric scooter 71.19lakh ing to a consumer and pay an ad- Arter examlin the evi- dence the forum $ president M ditional <35,000 towards com] pensation and litigation Piravi Perumal and member P expenses, holding the firm Shanmuga Priya concluded guilty of deficiency in service that there was & clez\" delicien | According to the order; with- Cyin service on the part of the in the 10 days of the purchase On January 20, the EV tirm Of the vchicle on January 14, commission directed the firIl to refund the entire purchase 2021, froIl showroom in ೩ Palayamkottai complainant D amount to the complainantand Poornima 01 Veeravanallur take back the detective vehicle faced issues including difficul Also, it ordered a payment of 725,000 as compensation for ty in powering on, for which mental agony and inconven- the firm allegedly advised pro- longed charging instead of rec ience caused to the customer and <10,000 towards litigation ing tify the detect The issues persisted despite repeated com costs It said that the amount plaints and the vehicle alleg should be paid within 45 days; edly broke down multiple times failing compliance,theamount on the road In July २०२४, the would attract 9%0 of interest battery failed to charge, leaving per annum until realisation - ShareChat")