Consumer Commission Orders Compensation and Battery Replacement
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh has directed Hero Electric Vehicle Private Limited and its dealer, M/s GoGreen Bikes Private Limited, to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to a city resident for a defective electric scooter. The commission also ordered the replacement of the scooter's battery with a new one and an extension of the warranty.
Complaint Details and Defects Reported
Ashok Kumar, a resident of Chandigarh, purchased a Flash LE Red Electric scooter on April 8, 2022, for Rs 52,000 from M/s GoGreen Bikes Private Limited, located in Sector 21 C. The scooter came with a 3-year warranty on the e-bike and a one-year warranty on the battery. However, within 10 days of purchase, Kumar noticed that the battery was not charging properly. He reported the issue to the dealer, who performed minor repairs without preparing a job card. The same problem recurred, and after inspection, the dealer issued a job card dated July 22, 2022. The scooter remained with the dealer for 20-25 days before being returned. In September 2022, Kumar faced battery problems again, and after another repair, the scooter was handed back to him.
Allegations of Deficiency in Service
Kumar alleged that the electric scooter suffered from manufacturing defects and that the dealer and company were obligated to repair or replace the defective parts or the scooter itself. Despite repeated contacts, they failed to do so. He filed a complaint seeking a refund of the purchase amount with interest, compensation, and litigation expenses, claiming the acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Defense by Hero Electric and Dealer
In their reply, Hero Electric and the dealer claimed they provided service as per policy and that the fault was due to Kumar's improper handling and maintenance of the vehicle. They stated they communicated with Kumar telephonically, personally, and via a letter sent on December 22, 2022. They denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and requested dismissal of the complaint.
Commission's Findings and Order
After hearing arguments, the commission observed that within a short period after purchase, Kumar repeatedly reported battery-related defects. Job cards confirmed that the scooter was taken to the workshop multiple times for the same defect and remained with the dealer for a considerable period for repairs. The commission noted that while the dealer and company claimed the defect was due to improper handling, they provided no cogent evidence, expert report, or technical material to support this defense. The recurring nature of the defect during the warranty period clearly indicated an inherent defect in the battery that the dealer and company failed to rectify despite repeated opportunities.
The commission directed the dealer and Hero Electric to replace the scooter's battery with a brand new one and extend the warranty. Additionally, they must pay Rs 20,000 to Kumar as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
