{"id":32592,"date":"2026-10-05T05:35:26","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T05:35:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=32592"},"modified":"2026-10-05T05:35:26","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T05:35:26","slug":"complainant-gets-rs-1-63-lakh-payout-after-electric-scooter-faced-defects-failed-to-deliver-promised-mileage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=32592","title":{"rendered":"Complainant gets Rs 1.63 lakh payout after electric scooter faced defects, failed to deliver promised mileage"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Complainant<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: A Kerala district consumer commission has directed an electric scooter manufacturer to refund Rs 88,000 to a customer after finding manufacturing defects in the vehicle, including poor battery performance and a defective front wheel bearing system. The commission also awarded him Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 as litigation costs. The order was passed on September 30, 2026.Why did the customer approach the commission?<\/span>According to the commission order, Rajeshkumar R bought an electric scooter on February 21, 2022. The vehicle and its parts carried a three-year warranty and the dealer had represented that it would run 85 km after a six hour charge.The complainant alleged that the scooter initially managed only around 40 km on a charge. Even after servicing and replacement of batteries, the mileage did not improve. Batteries were changed in March and October 2023, but the vehicle eventually ran only 18 to 20 km on a full charge.He also complained of a loose front wheel bearing and problems with the charger. He alleged that the dealer could not repair the bearing and that spare parts were not available. He sought a refund of Rs 88,000, Rs 3 lakh as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs.However, the manufacturer and dealer argued that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed on December 11, 2024, more than two years after the purchase. They also alleged that the mileage depended on factors including rider weight, terrain, tyre pressure, riding style, temperature and speed. They denied any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service.What did the consumer commission find?<\/span>The bench of President Vinay Menon V <\/span>and members Vidya A <\/span>and Krishnankutty N K <\/span>held that the complaint was not barred by limitation. The commission held the cause of action arose only when it became clear the defects could not be rectified, noting batteries were replaced as late as 2023.The commission also considered a joint report submitted by two experts in electrical and mechanical engineering. The report found an inherent defect in the front wheel shaft bearing system, insufficient battery voltage, poor charging retention, an oval-shaped shaft hole causing misalignment and mileage of only 16 km on a full charge.The commission noted that the manufacturer and dealer had objected to the expert report but had not produced evidence to disprove its findings.\u201cEven though the OPs 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,\u201d the bench further noted.The commission also noted that the opposite parties had not produced documents showing that they had provided effective service to the vehicle.\u201cThus, complainant has proved his case by cogent evidence. OPs have failed to disprove the evidence adduced by the complainant,\u201d the commission said.The bench comprising president Vinay Menon V and members Vidya A and Krishnankutty N.K. held that the scooter suffered from a manufacturing defect. It said the defect was established through the expert evidence, while the opposite parties failed to disprove it.\u201cResultantly, we hold that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect. Since the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect no liability is being cast on OP2,\u201d the commission further said.The commission directed the manufacturer to:<\/p>\n

\n