- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
DCDRC Holds Tiruvannamalai Branch Of Ola Experience Centre Liable For Not Delivering Electric Scooter Despite Being Paid
DCDRC Holds Tiruvannamalai Branch Of Ola Experience Centre Liable For Not Delivering Electric Scooter Despite Being Paid
Orders it to refund ₹ 1,32,165 to the complainant, pay ₹ 50,000 as compensation and ₹ 5,000 for litigation costs
The Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held Ola Experience Centre liable for service deficiency for failing to deliver the electric scooter despite receiving full payment.
The complainant approached the Ola Centre to purchase an electric scooter. The showroom in-charge indicated that the vehicle would be delivered to him by 13 December 2023 but insisted on immediate full payment of ₹ 1,32,165.
The complainant promptly paid the amount through credit and debit cards. Subsequently, vehicle insurance was secured under his name.
Later, he received an OTP for vehicle registration. When the complainant sought information about the registration process, Ola Centre changed the dates without offering a clear explanation. Despite repeated attempts to contact the showroom, the complainant did not receive a satisfactory reply.
Somehow, he sourced the mobile number of the manager via WhatsApp. The latter advised him to wait an additional 15 days due to the company's failure to renew the required Traffic-Sign Recognition (TSR) copy for the vehicle’s sale.
The negligence of the Ola Centre led to the complainant paying for insurance on an unregistered vehicle. It remained unregistered beyond the originally promised deadline. This prevented the complainant from using it for urgent medical purposes for his grandparents.
Aggrieved by the situation, the complainant approached the DCRDC and filed a complaint against Ola Experience Centre.
Neither the Ola Centre nor the Ola Electric Mobility Pvt Ltd appeared before the District Commission for proceedings.
The bench of K. Ganesan (President), J. Ravindran (Member) and R. Vijaya (Member) noted that the series of events of non-responsive behavior on the part of Ola Centre resulted in financial loss to the complainant through unnecessary insurance costs and the inability to use the vehicle.
The District Commission held that the company committed a deficiency in service by failing to deliver the vehicle despite receiving full payment and numerous requests.
It ordered Ola Experience Centre to refund ₹ 1,32,165 to the complainant and directed it to pay ₹ 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹ 5,000 for litigation costs.