news entertainment

Delhi govt delists Tata Nexon EV XZ+ from subsidy under EV policy

0 172


New Delhi, March 1 (IANS) The Delhi government on Monday announced that it has suspended the subsidy given under its electric vehicle (EV) policy to Tata Nexon EV XZ+ vehicles. The delisting came after receiving complaints from an owner of the said model.

According to the Delhi government, a complainant, who is the owner of a Tata Nexon EV XZ+ vehicle, said that his car did not perform as per the company claims.

He had written in the complaint that while the company claimed that the car can travel a distance of 312 km on a single charge, his vehicle never provided a range more than 200 km.

The complainant had bought the vehicle under the EV policy of the Delhi government. The Delhi government had also issued a showcause notice to Tata Motors and sought its reply in the matter.

Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot tweeted, “The Delhi government has decided to suspend subsidy on an EV car model, pending final report of a committee, due to complaints by multiple users of sub-standard range performance. We are committed to support EVs, but not at the cost of trust & confidence of citizens in claims by manufacturers.”

“Given the aforesaid view, coupled with the need to avoid/prevent any further adverse fall out on the EV policy itself and its salient and fundamental objectives, as well as in the public interest, it is necessary/imperative to suspend the listing of the subject EV, i.e., Tata Nexon EV, as an eligible EV from the list of eligible models availing subsidy under the Delhi EV policy. The EV, Tata Nexon, will not be eligible for EV subsidy till the committee submits its report and decision is taken accordingly,” the government order read.

Tata Motors had also submitted its reply on the matter. However, the Delhi government found the reply to be non-satisfactory.

Tata Motors insisted on the range of 312 km solely on the basis of a test result of ARAI. But the government said that the sole piece of evidence is not sufficient to displace the basis of the complaint.




Source link