
5 min readNew DelhiJun 13, 2026 01:00 PM IST
The consumer body concluded that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version put forth by the complainant. (AI-generated image)
A man who bought an electric scooter to save on fuel costs ended up grappling with recurring battery defects that surfaced within six months of purchase. Holding the manufacturer and dealer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the district consumer commission of Amritsar ordered free replacement of the defective batteries, worth about Rs 55,000, even though the warranty period had expired.
President Charanjit Singh, Nidhi Verma (Member) and V P S Saini (Member) were hearing a complaint filed by one Sunil Kumar Gupta, who had purchased an Okinawa Praise electric scooter for Rs 71,460 in November 2018.
“The conduct of opposite party No.2 in continuously assuring the complainant regarding rectification and thereafter refusing replacement on the ground of expiry of warranty amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Any consumer would like to purchase a brand new product just to avoid any unnecessary hardship and inconvenience, so that the said product may work properly at least for a minimum period of two to three years,” the June 11 order read.
‘Can’t disbelieve the complainant’s version’
The commission found that the said company failed to prove that the defect in the scooter was not a manufacturing defect.
It further noted that the evidence on record showed that the battery-related defects kept recurring within a short span despite repeated servicing and assurances by the dealer.
The consumer body held that due to the defective functioning of the batteries and failure of the said company to provide proper after-sale service, the man suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss.
The consumer body concluded that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version put forth by the complainant.
It also noted that the manufacturer and dealer chose not to contest the complaint by leading any rebuttal evidence.
The commission rejected the contention that the battery manufacturer was a necessary party to the proceedings.
It observed that the complainant had purchased a complete vehicle, including the fitted batteries, from the manufacturer through its authorised dealer.
The consumer body held that the complainant is also entitled to Rs 10,000 as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,500 as litigation expenses from the said company and dealer.
Batteries started failing within six months
It was placed on record that the complainant had purchased one ‘Okinawa Praise’ electric two-wheeler for Rs 71,460. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, a booklet ‘owner’s manual’ containing free service cards and paid cards was issued to the complainant. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, a warranty card for batteries used in the vehicle was also delivered to the complainant.
The said company further issued a delivery certificate of the vehicle. After purchase of the vehicle, the complainant availed two free services and three paid services up to November 2019.
According to the complainant, although the written battery warranty was for 12 months, the dealer assured him at the time of sale that the batteries would function properly for at least two years and that replacement support would be available even after expiry of the written warranty because of the dealer’s tie-up with the battery supplier.
However, after about six months of use, the batteries allegedly began malfunctioning and failed to retain charge despite being fully charged.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant stated that he repeatedly brought the issue to the dealer’s notice during service visits. Each time he was assured that the problem had been rectified, but the defect would reappear within 10 to 15 days.
It was further claimed that the complainant purchased the electric scooter to save on rising petrol expenses despite paying a higher price for the electric vehicle than a comparable petrol-powered scooter.
According to the complainant, the dealer’s staff admitted that lead-acid batteries fitted in the scooter had generated complaints from several consumers and that lithium batteries would have been a better alternative.
The complainant further alleged that he was informed that replacement batteries would cost around Rs 55,000, even though the scooter itself had cost only about Rs 71,000.
Story continues below this ad
He alleged that the dealer had misled him at the time of purchase regarding the quality and expected life of the batteries.
The complainant also stated that despite repeated assurances, the dealer failed to replace the batteries during the warranty period. When he eventually deposited the scooter at the showroom because of the persistent battery problem, he was informed that the warranty had expired and that he would now have to bear the replacement cost himself.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Expertise
Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.
Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:
Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.
Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
Tags:
Consumer dispute Redressal Commission
View original source — Indian Express ↗



