SURAT: A Surat family was trapped inside their flat after a digital door lock jammed, prompting the owner to pay Rs 400 for an emergency technician visit even though the lock was under warranty. The consumer commission later ruled that charging a separate visitation fee during the warranty period amounted to an unfair trade practice.Ritul Gabani, who had purchased the digital lock for his flat in Katargam, contacted Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd for urgent assistance after the lock allegedly stopped functioning on October 23 last year.With his family unable to leave the flat, Gabani sought immediate help from the company’s customer care. He was told that a technician would visit only after he paid a Rs 400 visitation charge.Gabani paid the amount, saying he had no way of repairing the lock himself and could not hire another technician because doing so could affect the warranty. He later approached the Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional) and filed a complaint on December 29.During the proceedings, Gabani argued that the lock was under warranty and that he should not have been charged separately for an emergency service visit. He also alleged that no demonstration of the lock had been provided when he purchased it.The company, however, maintained that the lock had been functioning properly when purchased and that there was no manufacturing defect. Its advocate also submitted that service had been provided during the warranty period and that the lock’s parts were repairable or replaceable.The commission noted that Gabani had a genuine need for technical assistance as he could neither remove nor repair the lock himself.It held that collecting the Rs 400 visitation charge despite the product being under warranty amounted to an unfair trade practice. The commission also observed that the incident had caused the consumer mental harassment and inconvenience.The commission partly allowed Gabani’s complaint and directed Godrej & Boyce to refund the Rs 400 visitation fee with 7% annual interest.It further ordered the company to pay Rs 1,000 for mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs 500 towards litigation expenses.
