When an Ola electric scooter’s trunk defect went unrepaired for months despite repeated complaints, it began affecting an Andhra Pradesh advocate’s ability to safely carry court files and attend to his legal work.Holding Ola Electric and its service centre guilty of deficiency in service, an Andhra Pradesh consumer commission has directed them to fix the defect free of cost and pay the advocate Rs 45,000 in compensation and litigation expenses.The Anantapuramu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president M Sreelatha and member B Gopinath was hearing a complaint filed by advocate M Murali Mohan against Ola Electric Mobility Private Limited and its Anantapuramu service centre.The complaint alleged deficiency in service over the company’s failure to fix a defective trunk lock in his Ola S1 Pro scooter despite repeated requests during the warranty period.“There is clear liability on the opposite parties to rectify a genuine issue which is within warranty period, and the same can be rectified by the company own technician only, but they failed to do so, which clearly attributes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,” the commission said on June 9.The dispute traces back to a scooter purchased in October 2022. According to the advocate, the trunk developed a locking defect during the warranty period, leaving him unable to securely carry case files and court documents that formed an essential part of his professional work. Despite approaching the service centre, sending emails and even issuing a legal notice, the problem allegedly remained unresolved.Defect emerged during warranty periodThe commission noted that Murali Mohan purchased the Ola S1 Pro on October 29, 2022, and received delivery on November 7, 2022. The vehicle carried a warranty of 36 months or 40,000 kilometres, whichever was earlier.According to the complaint, the scooter’s trunk was not functioning properly. When he contacted the Ola service centre, he was informed that the issue related to the lock mechanism and could be rectified after replacement parts became available. He later visited the showroom on September 29, 2025, but was allegedly told that the required locks were not in stock and would be replaced after fresh stock arrived.Story continues below this adAdvocate said court work sufferedMurali Mohan told the commission that he regularly used the scooter for attending court and carrying case bundles. The non-functional trunk made it difficult to transport important files safely and created the risk of documents being misplaced or damaged.The complaint stated that he repeatedly followed up with service personnel and even sent emails detailing the problem. He also complained about the response received from staff and alleged that despite acknowledgements from the company, no effective action was taken.Finding no resolution, the advocate issued a legal notice on October 15, 2025, calling upon the company to repair the vehicle. Even after receiving the notice, the defect remained unresolved, prompting him to move the consumer commission.Ola did not file written defenceThe commission noted that notices were issued to the company and the service centre. Though they initially engaged a lawyer, neither the opposite parties nor their counsel appeared subsequently. The commission further recorded that no written version was filed within the statutory period of 45 days. Consequently, their right to file a defence was forfeited and the matter proceeded based on the complainant’s evidence and documents.Story continues below this adCommission finds deficiency in serviceAfter examining the material on record, the commission observed that the complainant had repeatedly informed the company about the defect and that the company had acknowledged the issue and assured rectification.It found that the defect had arisen within the warranty period and that only authorised company technicians could carry out repairs.Yet, despite repeated assurances, the issue was not rectified.The order noted that, as an advocate, the complainant faced professional difficulties because “case files cannot be carried securely without a functional trunk” and there was a possibility of losing important documents.Compensation claim partly allowedAdvocate Mohan had sought compensation under several heads, including deficiency in service, non-rectification of defects, mental agony and litigation costs. While accepting that he had suffered inconvenience and mental stress, the commission held that compensation for deficiency in service and non-rectification of the defect could not be treated as separate claims. It therefore awarded a reduced amount.The commission observed that the company’s failure to rectify the defect despite warranty coverage amounted to negligence and violation of its own terms and conditions. Taking into account the complainant’s profession and the inconvenience caused to him, it awarded compensation for both deficiency in service and mental agony.Relief grantedAllowing the complaint in part, the commission directed Ola Electric and its service centre to jointly rectify the scooter trunk defect free of cost and pay Rs 20,000 towards deficiency in service, Rs 20,000 towards mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.The order requires compliance within 45 days. If the defect is not rectified within that period, the company will have to replace the trunk with a new one and pay the compensation amount along with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment until realisation.Story continues below this adConsumer takeawayThe ruling underlines that manufacturers and authorised service centres can be held liable when defects arising within the warranty period remain unresolved despite repeated complaints. The commission’s order also highlights that consumer forums may take into account the practical impact of a defect on a consumer’s profession and daily life while awarding compensation.