An electric scooter owner in Kerala has been awarded Rs 1.68 lakh after a consumer commission found that his vehicle suffered from persistent defects and could travel only 16 km on a full charge, despite being represented as capable of covering 85 km.
The Indian Express reported that the Palakkad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the manufacturer to refund the scooter’s Rs 88,000 purchase price, besides paying Rs 55,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs.
The commission, comprising president Vinay Menon V and members Vidya A and Krishnankutty N K, passed the order on September 30.
According to The Indian Express report, the commission relied on an examination by two experts, who found problems involving the scooter’s battery, front-wheel shaft bearing system and charge retention.
Scooter failed to deliver promised range
The Indian Express reported that the consumer purchased the electric scooter from an authorised dealer in 2022 for Rs 88,000. It came with a three-year warranty, while the dealer had claimed that the vehicle could travel up to 85 km after a six-hour charge.
The consumer alleged that the scooter never delivered the promised performance. It initially managed around 40 km on a full charge, but its range subsequently reduced despite repeated servicing and battery replacements.
According to the complaint, batteries were replaced in March and October 2023, among other occasions. Despite these interventions, the scooter eventually travelled only around 18-20 km on a full charge.
The consumer also complained of a faulty charger and a loose front-wheel bearing. He alleged that the dealer failed to provide the necessary spare parts and repairs, prompting him to approach the consumer commission.
Manufacturer blames riding conditions
The manufacturer and dealer denied that the scooter suffered from any manufacturing defect.
They attributed the poor range to factors such as the rider’s weight, terrain, tyre pressure, riding style, temperature and high-speed riding.
They also argued that the consumer’s complaint, filed in December 2024, was barred by limitation.
The commission rejected the limitation argument, noting that the mileage problem had continued despite repeated attempts to rectify it and replacement of batteries.
It held that the cause of action arose when it became clear that the problem could not be resolved.
Experts find scooter could travel only 16 km
The commission found that the consumer had complained of three continuing problems – poor mileage, a loose front-wheel bearing and charger-related issues. It relied on a joint report prepared by two experts who examined the scooter.
The experts found an inherent defect in the front-wheel shaft bearing system, inadequate battery voltage, poor charge retention and misalignment caused by an oval-shaped shaft hole.
Their examination found that the scooter could travel only 16 km on a full charge.
The manufacturer and dealer had attributed the reduced mileage to external factors. However, the commission noted that they failed to produce evidence showing that these factors were actually responsible for the scooter’s poor performance.
Manufacturer unable to disprove expert findings
The commission also noted that the manufacturer and dealer had objected to the expert report but did not produce evidence to substantiate their objections.
It further observed that the manufacturer had not produced records showing that effective service had been provided to resolve the problems despite the issue being repeatedly raised by the consumer.
The opposite parties were also absent for nine consecutive postings and were eventually proceeded against ex parte.
“Even though the opposite party had stated a number of causes that might result in the condition suffered by the vehicle, they had failed to prove by evidence that the factors laid out by them were, in fact, the reasons for the complaints suffered by the vehicle,” the commission said.
Rs 1.68 lakh ordered
The commission directed the manufacturer to provide Rs 88,000 refund of the scooter’s purchase price, Rs 55,000 compensation and Rs 25,000 litigation costs. The total relief amounted to Rs 1.68 lakh.
Takeaway
The order notes that repeated repairs or replacement of components may not be enough when a vehicle continues to suffer from a fundamental performance problem. In this case, the consumer’s claim was supported by an expert examination that identified multiple defects and recorded a range of just 16 km on a full charge.
The ruling also pointed the importance of evidence. Where a manufacturer attributes poor vehicle performance to factors such as riding style, tyre pressure or terrain, it may need to substantiate that explanation when faced with expert findings pointing to a defect.