[psbali]

Originally Posted by Nanolover

I think it is a case of deliberate Tata bashing especially by people who don't own a Tata EV. This forum is not a place for generalised comments. .

My father owns a 2022 Nexon EV Prime XM. I am responsible for maintaining it and responsible for 60% of its current mileage.

I should have mentioned this before to avoid the uno reverse.

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by NomadSK

Do you mean to say this tray at bottom protects the battery section against water ingress ? What level of IP it has ? Would be interesting to know.

Yes, the lower cover is the barrier between the cells and the external elements.

[elevator]

Originally Posted by Nanolover

I think it is a case of deliberate Tata bashing especially by people who don't own a Tata EV. This forum is not a place for generalised comments. It's up to the insurance company to survey, assess, and reject what is needed. Moreover with the highest ground clearance for Nexon, unless and until a car is driven over a divider or is involved in an accident against a similar object, this case cannot happen.

I'd like to clarify that the purpose of this thread was to raise awareness about potential pitfalls in EV warranties, not to engage in Tata bashing.

As a prospective EV buyer, I was particularly interested in the Curvv EV and assumed that the battery would be fully covered for the advertised warranty period. However, I later discovered that there are additional considerations and potential hurdles when it comes to warranty claims.

While insurance processes might be similar for ICE and EV vehicles, the battery is a unique component that warrants special attention. The fact that customers may be required to pay for repairs due to scratches or other minor damage is a concern.

[mally2]

So I am in the same predicament - Please read this post to get context https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/elect...ata-evs-4.html (HV Critical Alert in Tata EVs)

Now back to part 2 of the saga form TATA

Noticed a sharp decline in range from 31-0% reported to TATA same days and now they have come back saying there is damage on the battery casing and I need to raise an insurance. Which I don’t mind. I have raised a claim but the onus should be on TATA to prove to the insurance company that the range drop is due to the minor chip on the battery pack

This is going to create a bad Rep for TATA. I
For one will never touch a TATA EV again if this goes south.

[coldice4u]

Originally Posted by mally2

Noticed a sharp decline in range from 31-0% reported to TATA same days and now they have come back saying there is damage on the battery casing and I need to raise an insurance

As a Tiago EV owner this is getting really concerning. I can understand Tata requesting replacement of damaged battery casings so that the replaced battery does not get damaged (?) but a lot of the pictures posted here indicate cosmetic damage.

What is Tata asking for the battery casing?

[mally2]

Originally Posted by coldice4u

As a Tiago EV owner this is getting really concerning. I can understand Tata requesting replacement of damaged battery casings so that the replaced battery does not get damaged (?) but a lot of the pictures posted here indicate cosmetic damage.

What is Tata asking for the battery casing?

As far as I know they are being unethical and avoiding ownership. Very unlike of TATA. As a Tiago.EV owner you need to be very very concerned.

[rkv_hunter]

What is the experience of MG or Mahindra EV owners in this regard?

At this rate if BYD has the same policies BYD Seal owners can never get a battery warranty claim given the ground clearance.

Current discounts on EVs show that the OEMs have been pocketing most of the benefit on taxes given by the govt for promoting EVs.

On top of that such behaviour with early adopters of a new segment is completely baffling if they want to really create an EV market in the country.

[mally2]

Originally Posted by rkv_hunter

What is the experience of MG or Mahindra EV owners in this regard?

At this rate if BYD has the same policies BYD Seal owners can never get a battery warranty claim given the ground

I’ve yet to see such poor quality examples from other OEMs

[elevator]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

I think option 1 is most reasonable here. The battery itself is replaced under warranty, and the cover be done under insurance. The owner effectively gets a brand new battery with full warranty coverage, at only the cost of his no claim bonus.

Despite experiencing SOC or HV issues, they may only repair damaged cells instead of replacing the entire battery when the protective cover is scratched or damaged.

[elevator]

Originally Posted by Cresterk

I’m sorry but I read through the email and it says they they will replace the battery under warranty but the outer cover won’t be covered since it has physical damage from underbody hit. I believe this is rather reasonable especially since they have given the option of claiming insurance for just the cover while the cells are replaced by them. Out of curiousiity, how much does the cover cost?

Should the battery replacement be approved, the owner will receive a refurbished battery pack, not a new one.

[coldice4u]

Originally Posted by elevator

Despite experiencing SOC or HV issues, they may only repair damaged cells instead of replacing the entire battery when the protective cover is scratched or damaged.

Originally Posted by elevator

Should the battery replacement be approved, the owner will receive a refurbished battery pack, not a new one.

I dont find any issues with either of the above.
Repair of only the damaged cells instead of the entire battery is much more prudent. Any reason why should Tata replace the entire battery if replacement of a few cells can do the trick?

For the replacement battery being a refurbished one, as long as the SoH is more or equal to the original battery and provides similar range, charging times etc, i don't think anyone should have any issues. Again any reason why should one be entitled to a NEW battery during replacement?

Also could you kindly share which of the 3 options was taken up by person mentioned in the opening posts? And what kind of costs were involved?

[ishekk]

Originally Posted by mally2

I’ve yet to see such poor quality examples from other OEMs

Hyundai is another such OEM. It refused to honor warranty because of minor scratches on battery protection cover:

https://youtu.be/dr3mFzh0KSk

Originally Posted by elevator

As you can see, the company has denied a warranty claim for battery pack replacement due to minor scratches on the protective cover.

Is it confirmed that cells which are damaged are near the location of dent?

Originally Posted by elevator

For Protective Casing, customer has to pay Rs 150,000.

Why is the cost of cover so high?

How is it ensured that after opening battery pack to replace cells, the pack will remain waterproof?

Also I am finding it very disturbing that the battery packs mounted at the bottom of car don't actually have any protection sheet and minor hits on it are causing issues. In ICE vehicles no such awful thing happens.

[mercedised]

This is just unacceptable, height of poor engineering. The bottom of the car, specially in Indian conditions will go through hits and this should be considered while designing such cars. I have been a mad Tata fanboy since my school days, after owning almost every Safari, Indica and Nano, Sierra, the craze has finally been killed by the lethargic, poor and jugaad mentality of our beloved Tata. Yes, I am calling jugaad on purpose and I have plenty of reasons to say such harsh words after owning a fleet of Tata cars. I found Mahindra have improved a lot but not Tata.

[mally2]

Originally Posted by Cresterk

I’m sorry but I read through the email and it says they they will replace the battery under warranty but the outer cover won’t be covered since it has physical damage from underbody hit. I believe this is rather reasonable especially since they have given the option of claiming insurance for just the cover while the cells are replaced by them. Out of curiousiity, how much does the cover cost?

While this seems reasonable. How will one know the pack has a dent. Should one check everyday? Most insurance companies deny claim if the damage is more than a week old. Some may not even realise the SOC is dropping or the cells have an issues months later ?

[Cresterk]

Originally Posted by mercedised

This is just unacceptable, height of poor engineering. The bottom of the car, specially in Indian conditions will go through hits and this should be considered while designing such cars.

Originally Posted by mally2

While this seems reasonable. How will one know the pack has a dent. Should one check everyday? Most insurance companies deny claim if the damage is more than a week old. Some may not even realise the SOC is dropping or the cells have an issues months later ?

My friend if you are banging the underside of a car with 200mm ground clearance to this extent every single day without noticing, then you are going to have way more problems than just dents.

I'm guessing the cover is a shield that is required to protect the battery from underbody impacts since puncturing the battery pack could lead to electrical fires which are very dangerous.

As far as I know, Tata doesn't manufacture their own battery packs. I'm guessing the entire thing is removed from the car and then sent to their battery supplier as is to be repaired, while another battery pack and shield is installed in the car. Probably a good move since high voltage battery packs require training and equipment to be repaired safely that the average dealership tech might not have.

However, I agree that the damage seems to be rather minor and doesn't look like it needs a replacement. I'm guessing their contract with the supplier stipulates that the cover needs to be replaced as well to continue honouring the warranty. Either way, the damage to the cover is accidental damage from usage and should be covered by insurance, not warranty.

Escalate with the insurance ombudsman, it's the insurance company's job to prove that the damage occurred more than a week ago. As far as the owner knows, it probably happened 3 days ago