Ola Electric has been directed to pay more than ₹1.30 lakh to a consumer after a Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The case highlights the responsibilities of manufacturers and service providers to honour warranty commitments and provide effective after-sales support to consumers.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod, partially allowed a complaint filed by a customer who alleged that his Ola S1 Pro Gen 2 electric scooter developed repeated technical problems during the warranty period. Despite approaching service centres, the defects allegedly remained unresolved, eventually making the vehicle unusable.
The commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay ₹1,03,999 towards refund of the scooter’s purchase price, ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
Consumer Purchased Ola S1 Pro Gen 2 Scooter
According to the case details reported by the Times of India, the complainant, Jithin GA, purchased an Ola S1 Pro Gen 2 electric scooter from the company’s outlet in Kasaragod, Kerala.
The consumer paid ₹71,259 as a down payment, while the remaining purchase amount was financed through a bank loan. The scooter was covered by a 40,000-kilometre warranty, along with an additional warranty plan.
The vehicle, however, allegedly began developing problems within only a few months of purchase.
One of the initial problems involved the scooter’s rear shock absorber. When the customer approached a nearby service centre for repairs, he was reportedly informed that the issue could not be rectified at Payyannur and that the vehicle had to be taken to the company’s facility in Mangalore.
For a consumer located in Kasaragod, this involved travelling approximately 100 kilometres to obtain service.
Service Centre Closures Added to Consumer’s Difficulties
The consumer further alleged that service facilities in Kasaragod, Kannur and Mangalore subsequently stopped functioning.
This created additional difficulties for him in obtaining repairs and warranty-related assistance.
The scooter reportedly developed further problems. According to the complaint, the vehicle’s battery would automatically shut down after its charge level fell below a particular percentage. The rear shock absorber also allegedly became defective again.
The complainant claimed that the scooter became increasingly difficult to use and that he was sometimes required to depend on recovery vehicles to reach charging facilities.
As the problems continued without an effective solution, he alleged that the vehicle ultimately became unusable.
Apart from the financial loss associated with the defective vehicle, the consumer claimed to have suffered mental agony, inconvenience and other difficulties because of the repeated defects and inadequate after-sales service.
Ola Electric Did Not Contest the Complaint
The consumer commission also considered the procedural circumstances of the case.
A notice issued to the Ola outlet in Kasaragod was reportedly returned with an endorsement that the addressee had left and the establishment had closed.
Another notice was subsequently served on Ola Electric Mobility Limited on March 5, 2026.
However, according to the case details, the company neither appeared before the commission nor submitted a written response to the allegations.
Consequently, the proceedings continued ex parte against the company.
This meant that the commission considered the complainant’s evidence in the absence of a defence from the opposite party.
Consumer Commission Examined Warranty Documents
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod, was presided over by President Krishnan K and Member Beena KG.
While deciding the complaint, the commission examined documents produced by the complainant, including the order booking form, purchase invoice and extended warranty certificate.
The warranty terms became an important aspect of the commission’s decision.
The bench took particular objection to a clause in the extended warranty documentation that allowed the company to modify the warranty’s terms and conditions.
The warranty reportedly required customers to regularly check the company’s website for changes to the applicable terms.
The commission considered such a unilateral power to change warranty conditions problematic from a consumer-rights perspective.
Commission Finds Warranty Clause an Unfair Trade Practice
The commission specifically observed that the extended warranty document stated that Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd reserved the right to change its warranty terms and conditions at any time.
According to the commission, such a provision amounted to an unfair trade practice and was contrary to consumer rights.
The finding is significant because warranty terms are intended to provide consumers with clarity regarding the obligations of the manufacturer and the rights available to the purchaser.
A consumer purchasing a vehicle under a warranty arrangement would reasonably expect the agreed warranty obligations to remain meaningful and enforceable throughout the relevant warranty period.
Failure to Provide Proper Warranty Service
Apart from the warranty clause, the commission also focused on the alleged failure to provide adequate service when the scooter developed defects during the warranty period.
The geographical difficulty faced by the complainant was specifically considered.
The consumer was reportedly required to travel around 100 kilometres from Kasaragod to Mangalore for service after being informed that the Payyannur facility could not resolve the problem.
The commission noted that the complainant had not received proper service despite reporting defects while the vehicle was still covered by warranty.
According to the commission, the unresolved defects ultimately rendered the scooter useless.
The absence of any contrary evidence from the company further strengthened the complainant’s case before the commission.
Finding of Gross Deficiency in Service
After examining the evidence, the consumer commission concluded that there was a deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The commission relied on the warranty document and the absence of rebuttal evidence from Ola Electric.
The order effectively recognised that merely providing a warranty on paper may not be sufficient. Manufacturers and service providers must also ensure that consumers can practically access the promised warranty and after-sales services.
Where repeated defects are reported during the warranty period and the manufacturer fails to provide an effective remedy, the consumer may seek relief under consumer protection law.
Ola Electric Directed to Pay ₹1.30 Lakh
After partially allowing the complaint, the Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the two opposite parties jointly and severally liable.
They were directed to make the following payments within 30 days from receipt of the order:
| Particulars | Amount |
|---|---|
| Refund of scooter purchase price | ₹1,03,999 |
| Compensation for inconvenience and other losses | ₹25,000 |
| Cost of complaint/litigation | ₹5,000 |
| Total | ₹1,33,999 |
Thus, the total monetary relief awarded by the commission was ₹1,33,999.
Key Takeaway for Electric Vehicle Consumers
The case serves as an important reminder that after-sales service is an integral part of the consumer experience, particularly for electric vehicles that depend on specialised service infrastructure.
Consumers purchasing EVs should carefully preserve their purchase invoice, warranty documents, service records, repair requests, correspondence and payment documents. If a manufacturer fails to rectify a defect during the warranty period, these records can become important evidence in a consumer dispute.
The ruling also demonstrates that companies may face liability where warranty obligations are not effectively honoured or where contractual terms are considered unfair to consumers.
For EV manufacturers, the decision underscores the importance of maintaining an accessible service network and providing timely remedies for warranty-related complaints.
Conclusion
The Kasaragod consumer commission’s decision against Ola Electric reinforces the principle that consumer rights do not end with the sale of a product. A manufacturer providing a warranty must also take reasonable steps to ensure that consumers can actually obtain the promised service.
In this case, repeated technical problems, difficulties in accessing service facilities and the absence of an effective response from the company led the commission to find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The direction to refund ₹1,03,999, along with ₹25,000 compensation and ₹5,000 litigation costs, provides a significant remedy to the consumer.
The case is particularly relevant for India’s rapidly expanding electric vehicle market, where reliable after-sales service and accessible warranty support remain crucial factors in protecting consumer confidence.