3 min readChandigarhJun 19, 2026 06:31 PM IST
First published on: Jun 19, 2026 at 06:31 PM IST
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a Hero Electric dealer and the manufacturer to replace the battery of an electric scooter sold to a city resident and pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and litigation expenses after finding a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The complaint was filed by Ashok Kumar, 65, a resident of Chandigarh, against Go Green Bikes Private Limited (dealership), Chandigarh, and Hero Electric Vehicle Private Limited, Gurgaon.
Kumar submitted that he had purchased a Flash LE Red electric scooter for Rs 52,000 on April 8, 2022. According to the complainant, the scooter developed battery-related problems within 10 days of purchase. He alleged that despite repeated visits to the dealer and repair attempts, the defect persisted.
In his complaint, Kumar submitted that the scooter remained at the workshop for 20-25 days on one occasion and continued to suffer from battery issues even after repairs. He contended that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects and sought a refund of the purchase amount, compensation, and litigation costs.
The responding parties – Go Green Bikes Private Limited and Hero Electric Vehicle Private Limited – admitted the sale of the scooter but denied any deficiency in service. They submitted that they had provided service as per policy and that the defect had arisen due to the complainant’s handling and maintenance of the vehicle. The firms also claimed they had informed the complainant telephonically, personally, and through a letter dated December 22, 2022, regarding the replacement of the battery.
In its order dated June 10, the Commission observed that the complainant had repeatedly reported battery-related defects during the warranty period and that job cards dated July 22, 2022, and October 11, 2022, substantiated that the scooter had been taken to the workshop on more than one occasion for rectification of the same defect.
‘Recurring nature of defect’
Rejecting the defence, the Commission held, “No cogent evidence, expert report or technical material has been produced by the OPs (Opposite Parties) in support of their said defence. Rather, recurring nature of the defect during the warranty period clearly establishes that there was some inherent defect in the battery, which the OPs failed to rectify effectively despite repeated opportunities.”
The Commission further observed that the December 22, 2022, letter relied upon by the firms was undated, unsigned, and its mode of dispatch had not been proved, making it a “self-serving created document”.
However, the Commission declined the complainant’s request for replacement of the entire scooter or refund of its price, noting that no expert evidence had been produced to establish an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle itself.
It directed the opposite parties to replace the battery with a brand-new one, along with an extended warranty, and pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and litigation expenses.
In its order dated June 10, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the complainant had repeatedly reported battery-related defects during the warranty period. (Representative Image) 
Share
