Hyderabad District Commission Holds PuR Energy, Its Dealer Liable For Failure To Rectify Battery Issues With E-Scooter

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased an electric scooter manufactured by PuR Energy for Rs. 90,000/- from the showroom of E-Drive-Munnangi Motors (“Dealer”). From the beginning, the scooter exhibited persistent battery issues, including rapid discharge and inadequate mileage. Despite numerous complaints, the Dealer failed to resolve the issues. The Complainant contacted the service centre 7-8 times over 22 months. Every time the scooter was retained for 3-4 days by the service centre. The service centre attributed the problem to software issues. After 11-12 months of usage and with an odometer reading of around 8,000 kilometres, the Complainant again contacted the Dealer about the battery discharge problem. After much persuasion, a scooter with a standby battery of inferior capacity was provided. The battery was eventually replaced by PuR Energy. By June 2023, the new battery also malfunctioned after only 9 months and 7,000-8,000 kilometres of usage. The Complainant handed over the scooter and battery to the showroom for testing.

Later, the Complainant was informed that the battery needed to be sent to PuR Energy for further checks, which would take 45-60 days for a resolution. The Complainant requested a standby battery, which was not provided. It confirmed that the defective battery needed to be sent to the manufacturer and reiterated the 45-60-day replacement period. The Complainant expressed the need for the vehicle due to his son flying abroad, but the showroom expressed an inability to provide a solution. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad, Telangana (“District Commission”) against PuR Energy and the Dealer.

In response, PuR Energy argued that all sales and service issues are handled independently by authorized dealers who purchase vehicles at full price from the manufacturer. It argued that their batteries meet Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) 156 and are approved by the International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT). It argued that the Complainant did not follow the mandatory service schedule outlined in the owner's manual, which includes four free and six paid services crucial for vehicle maintenance.

The Dealer didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that buyers have a reasonable expectation of a hassle-free experience after purchasing a new product. Further, there is an implied contract that the vehicle should not suffer from faults or deficiencies in quality, potency, and standard. It noted that the owner's manual provided by PuR Energy lacked adequate information about the battery's manufacturing specifications, such as voltage, charging capacity, and energy storage capacity, which are crucial for determining the battery's power, longevity, and efficiency. PuR Energy failed to provide any evidence to claim that the Complainant did not adhere to the mandatory service schedule.

Further, the District Commission held that PuR Energy could not escape liability by shifting it on the Dealer. It held that as the manufacturer, PuR Energy has a responsibility to ensure the quality and reliability of its products. Therefore, the District Commission held PuR Energy liable for negligence and deficiency in rendering proper services.

The District Commission noted that the Complainant had to contact the service centre and the Dealer multiple times due to the battery draining problem. The repeated issues persisted over 15,000-16,000 kilometres of usage within 22 months, and the explanation given by the service centre was that the problem was due to software issues. The District Commission noted that the Dealer failed to utilize advanced diagnostic tools to identify and rectify the defects in the lithium-ion batteries.

Therefore, the District Commission held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the Dealer and potential manufacturing defects by PuR Energy. It held PuR Energy and the Dealer jointly and severally liable to rectify the entire problem with the electric scooter, replace the defective battery with a new one, and hand over the vehicle in roadworthy condition to the complainant. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and hardship and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of the litigation to the Complainant.

Case Title: K. Srinivasa Reddy vs PuR Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number: C.C. No. 352/2023

Date of Pronouncement: 07.06.2024