BENGALURU: A Bengaluru resident has won a consumer case against an electric two-wheeler manufacturer after the scooter he purchased as a wedding anniversary gift for his wife developed repeated faults within months of delivery.
Jeyaram NS, a resident of CV Raman Nagar, bought an electric scooter for ₹98,702 from the company’s Indiranagar showroom on January 25, 2024, intending it to serve as an eco-friendly commuting option for his wife. The vehicle was delivered five days later.
According to the complaint, the scooter experienced its first major malfunction just 24 days after delivery, when it failed to switch on and displayed a “sleeping” status on the mobile application. A technician reportedly restored it by reconnecting a loose wire beneath the seat.
The problems, however, continued. On March 5, the scooter again became inoperable and was towed to the service centre, where it remained for more than 23 days. The company later informed the customer that a firmware update had resolved the issue.
Despite those assurances, the scooter allegedly broke down several more times. On May 14, it stopped functioning while Jeyaram was travelling to Manyata Tech Park, leaving him stranded until a passerby helped reconnect a wire and restart the vehicle. Later that same day, the scooter failed again and was eventually towed back to the service centre on May 17.
In addition to the major breakdowns, Jeyaram alleged that the scooter suffered frequent software-related issues, including Bluetooth disconnections and app failures that prevented the digital key from starting the vehicle, causing repeated delays.
The complainant said that despite multiple calls, emails, social media posts and a complaint lodged through the National Consumer Helpline, the company did not provide a written service report. He also alleged that company representatives gave conflicting explanations regarding whether the scooter’s power controller board had been replaced.
After the third breakdown, Jeyaram’s wife reportedly stopped using the scooter altogether. He subsequently approached the consumer commission seeking a full refund along with interest.
In its defence, the company and two co-respondents denied any deficiency in service, stating that the scooter had been repaired and was ready for delivery. They argued that Jeyaram had refused to take back the vehicle despite repairs and claimed to have fulfilled all obligations under the sale agreement.
After examining the evidence, the consumer commission found that the company’s own submissions acknowledged unresolved defects in the vehicle. It also noted that the company failed to submit affidavit evidence or challenge the findings of a court-appointed commissioner, who reported that the scooter was unroadworthy, had missing spare parts and had remained at the service centre for more than 18 months.
The commission held that the company had sold a defective vehicle and failed to rectify the defects. It further observed that the refusal to provide the requested service report constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
In its order dated June 11, the bench comprising President V. Anuradha and Member Savitha Airani directed the company to refund ₹98,702 with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of purchase until payment. It also awarded ₹10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses
