Karnataka consumer commission orders EV maker to pay Rs 2.6 lakh after battery explodes while charging
A consumer commission in Karnataka has held an electric two-wheeler manufacturer liable for a battery explosion that occurred while charging, ordering it to pay Rs 2.6 lakh in compensation. The incident, which took place in February 2024, left the customer's father with severe burn injuries and damaged property.
The commission, led by President Eshappa K Bhute and members Vishalaxi A Bolashetti and P C Hiremath, found the manufacturer guilty of deficiency in service. It noted that the battery blast happened within the warranty period and that the complainant had reported defects earlier, which were not resolved.
The order directed the manufacturer to pay Rs 1 lakh for property damage, Rs 1 lakh for medical expenses, Rs 50,000 for mental agony, and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs. The commission assessed the value of damaged sewing machine and overlock machine at Rs 30,000 and awarded Rs 70,000 for other household losses.
According to the complaint, the electric two-wheeler was purchased for Rs 1.02 lakh. The battery began developing problems shortly after purchase, and despite repeated complaints, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer rectified the defect. On February 21, 2024, while charging at home, the battery exploded, causing a fire that injured the complainant's father and damaged a sewing machine, overlock machine, and other items.
The complainant's father, a tailor earning Rs 30,000 per month, was hospitalised for a week and incurred medical expenses of around Rs 2 lakh. The complainant sought Rs 15 lakh in compensation, but the commission found this excessive without proper documentation.
The manufacturer denied the allegations, claiming the complainant failed to follow the owner's manual instructions while charging. The insurer also opposed the claim, citing policy exclusions and delayed reporting.
After examining evidence, including a police report attributing the fire to the battery blast, the commission concluded that the explosion was due to a manufacturing defect. It stated: 'On account of sudden blasting there was fire incident and as a result father of complainant sustained severe injuries and aforesaid machines and household articles were burnt.'
