Bought with gold loan, scooter failed in day: Woman wins Rs 2.32 lakh

The bench noted that due to the repeated defects, delay, and negligent conduct of the opposite parties (Ola Electric and its MD), the complainant has completely lost confidence in the vehicle and is not willing to accept the repaired vehicle.

Gold loan, delivery of ‘faulty’ scooter

The case arose after the complainant purchased an Ola S1 Pro Plus 3rd Gen electric scooter for Rs 1.97 lakh by taking a gold loan of Rs 1.40 lakh against pledged gold ornaments. Although the scooter was promised for delivery by October 2, 2025, it was delivered only on December 30, 2025, after a delay of nearly three months.

Within 24 hours of delivery, the scooter allegedly developed serious technical faults, including a “scooter issue” error, automatic shutdown, and ABS lock, rendering it unusable. The complainant further alleged that instead of the booked 5.3 kWh variant, a 5.2 kWh variant was supplied. Despite repeated complaints and a legal notice, the defects were not rectified or addressed, prompting her to move the commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The complainant claimed that because of the delay and defective vehicle, she incurred daily transport expenses, continued interest on the loan, and suffered mental agony and financial hardship.

Ola Electric did not contest the case on merits. Although its counsel entered appearance, they failed to file a written version within the statutory 45-day period despite being given several opportunities. They placed no evidence or arguments on record to challenge the allegations. The commission then proceeded unilaterally against the company.

Relief, refund ordered

The complainant successfully proved that she had purchased the electric scooter for valid consideration and had repeatedly requested timely delivery through emails, yet the vehicle was delivered only after a significant delay. The scooter developed serious issues within 24 hours of delivery, and even the showroom staff could not start it the following day. Despite taking the vehicle for repairs, the company failed to rectify the defects.

The commission observed that the complainant had booked a 5.3 kWh battery variant, whereas the opposite parties delivered a 5.2 kWh variant, amounting to misrepresentation. It directed Ola Electric to refund Rs 1.97 lakh, pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs within one month, failing which the amounts would carry 9 per cent annual interest.

Takeaway

This ruling reinforces that consumers are entitled to timely delivery, the exact product they ordered, and a defect-free vehicle. It also highlights that companies cannot evade liability by remaining absent from proceedings. The decision recognises the financial and emotional hardship caused by defective goods purchased through loans, strengthening consumer protection against unfair trade practices.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Tamil Nadu: 044-25340050) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.