Back
OLA Electric Must Refund Full Amount for Non-Delivery: Kurnool Consumer Commission
Failure to Deliver After Full Payment Amounts to Deficiency: Kurnool Commission
The , comprising President Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar and Member Smt S. Nazima Kausar, has held and its Kurnool showroom liable for for failing to deliver an electric vehicle after receiving the entire sale consideration. The Commission ordered a of ₹1,34,161 with 12% interest from the date of payment, along with ₹90,000 , , and other hardships, and ₹10,000 towards .
The Case: A Graduate’s Dream of Earning Livelihood Dashed by Delayed Delivery
The complainant, Y. Raghavendra, a resident of Gondiparla, Kurnool, purchased an OLA Roadster X Plus electric vehicle by placing an order on . He paid the entire price of ₹1,34,161 on , with an expected delivery date of . After verification of his KYC by the local OLA showroom, he was assured timely delivery. However, the vehicle was not delivered even after five months of follow-ups through the , emails, and customer support. Raghavendra alleged that the vehicle was registered on , without him taking physical possession, and that the price of the same model later increased to ₹2,48,090, causing additional financial prejudice. Being a graduate and unemployed, he had borrowed the purchase amount to earn a livelihood by using the vehicle on ride-service platforms like Rapido.
OLA’s Defence: and Operational Hurdles Rejected
OLA Elektric Mobility and its showroom argued that the delivery date was only “indicative” as per the booking terms and conditions, and that delivery depended on factors such as vehicle availability and regulatory formalities. They denied any , calling the complaint a malafide attempt to extract an unjustified monetary benefit. They also raised preliminary objections on and .
No Substitute for Actual Delivery
The Commission examined the documentary evidence, including payment confirmations, email correspondences, and WhatsApp messages, and noted that there was no dispute over the transaction or the payment of the full consideration. The key question was whether the delay in delivery—stretching over several months without a satisfactory explanation—amounted to deficiency. The Commission observed:
“An estimated delivery date may permit reasonable operational flexibility, but it cannot confer an unrestricted right upon the service provider to retain the consumer's entire consideration for several months without either delivering the vehicle or providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay.”
The Commission specifically rejected OLA’s argument about the indicative nature of the delivery date, stating that such a term could not justify indefinite retention of the consumer’s money. It further held that the registration and insurance of the vehicle on , did not equate to . “Registration and insurance are distinct from and possession, which were the essential purpose of the transaction,” the Bench observed. The subsequent contact by OLA’s representative after the complaint was filed did not cure the prior deficiency.
and Awarded
On the question of compensation, the Commission noted that the complainant had not produced specific evidence of his expected income from ride-service platforms. However, it considered the prolonged period—about nine months—during which he was deprived of the vehicle and the intended earning opportunity. The of the same model was also taken into account. The Commission awarded ₹90,000 as compensation, calculated at ₹10,000 per month, for loss of livelihood, , inconvenience, harassment, and financial prejudice.
Final Order: Refund with 12% Interest and ₹90,000 Compensation
Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund ₹1,34,161 with interest at 12% per annum from till the date of actual payment. It also ordered the payment of ₹90,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards . All amounts are to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The decision reinforces the principle that once a consumer pays the full consideration, the service provider has a to deliver within a , and an “indicative” date cannot be used as a shield to avoid accountability.
