Gadag District Commission Dismisses Allegations Of Manufacturing Defect In Pure Electric Vehicle Against Purenergy

Brief facts:

The complainant purchased an electric vehicle manufactured by Purenergy Pvt Ltd ('manufacturer') and delivered by Irio Groups ('seller') by paying an amount of Rs. 74,999/-. He also obtained insurance from Go Digit General Insurance by paying a sum of Rs. 2,847 for the period 26.02.2022 to 25.02.2027. As per the complainant, the vehicle was having manufacturing defects from the starting due to which a request was made to the seller to either refund the amount or replace the vehicle. On 14.09.2023, the vehicle did not start and the complainant contacted the seller for home service. The request was denied by the seller. At last, the complainant approached the seller to collect the battery and sent it for repair to the manufacturer.

The manufacturer and seller are collectively referred to as 'Opposite Parties'.

As per the complainant, the seller kept on postponing the request for repair for some reason or the other.The complainant on every visit informed that he was facing manufacturing defects and requested to replace the same as the vehicle was under warranty period. As per the complainant, he repeatedly requested the seller through whatsapp chats for repair of his vehicle and return of his battery. The seller promised to return the battery but till today, the battery has not been supplied neither by the manufacturer nor by the seller. Subsequently, a legal notice dated 13.03.2024 was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. After issuance of the notice, the seller admitted fault in the battery on whatsapp chats and also demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the battery. Thus, a complaint was filed by the complainant alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Submissions of the manufacturer:

The manufacturer denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant against it and submitted that the batteries manufactured by it adhere to strict Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) and are approved by International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT).

Next, it was submitted that the complainant was negligent in getting the mandatory free service done of his vehicle as per the warranty policy which are crucial for maintenance, check-up and up-keeping of the vehicle.

Next, reliance was placed on Standard Owner's Manual regarding safety precautions that are obligatory to follow to keep the components in good health and avoid uncertain events. It was submitted that the standard charging protocol was clearly explained to the complainant at the time of purchase and the complainant has failed to disclose the intervals of charging. It was stated that terms and conditions of the warranty were not applicable since the conditions for availing the warranty were not fulfilled.

It was argued that a manufacturing defect cannot be determined without proper analysis or test from an appropriate laboratory as per Central Vehicle Motor Rules. It was further argued that the performance and durability of the vehicle suggest that the issues raised by the complainant stems from negligence in not following the mandatory schedule.

Observations of the commission:

The bench took note of all the documents submitted by the complainant and the written arguments of the manufacturer and observed that the complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly by servicing regularly even during the warranty period.

The commission placed reliance on Section 38 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and observed that the complainant had not proved the manufacturing defect by sending the vehicle to the laboratory for inspection. Thus, in the absence of any expert report, the allegation of manufacturing defect was found to be without any basis. It was further observed that the complainant has failed to comply with conditions of warranty and stating the manufacturing defect after 2 years cannot be accepted.

It was held that there is no question of refund or replacement of the vehicle and the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

Case Title: Shivakashayya vs Managing Director, Purenergy Pvt Ltd

Case Number: Complaint Number 145/2024

Date of Decision: 17.07.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order