AGRA: An electric scooter that developed problems on the day it was purchased and stopped working completely the following day has landed Ola Electric Technology Pvt Ltd in trouble, with an Aligarh consumer forum directing the company to replace the vehicle or refund its purchase price of Rs 1,02,505 with 10% annual interest.




The Aligarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also directed the company and its authorised service centre to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.




Vaibhav Sharma bought the electric scooter from an Ola showroom on Jan 31, 2024, for Rs 1,02,505. On the first day itself, the vehicle's parking lock became engaged and could not be unlocked, while its storage compartment failed to lock after being opened.




Sharma reported the defects to the Aligarh service centre and emailed the company's customer support team on Feb 1, his lawyer Shivam Nayak said on Thursday. The scooter stopped working completely the following day.




According to the consumer forum's order, Sharma visited the service centre repeatedly on Feb 2, 3, 5 and 6, but the problems remained unresolved. He eventually had to leave the scooter at the workshop.




On Feb 9, Sharma discovered that the company had closed his complaints without fixing the defects. He subsequently approached the consumer forum, seeking a replacement or refund, along with compensation for financial loss and mental harassment.




In their joint written statement, Ola's manufacturing and service entities claimed they had taken all necessary steps to address Sharma's concerns promptly.




However, the forum observed that the companies had not specifically denied the defects, Sharma's repeated visits to the service centre or the complaints he had raised. It noted that Sharma had supported his allegations through an affidavit, while the opposite parties had failed to specifically rebut them.




In its order dated Oct 16, 2026, the consumer forum, comprising president Hasnain Qureshi and member Purnima Singh Rajpoot, held that Sharma had established his case against the company and its authorised service centre.