Surat: A digital lock failure that trapped a Surat family inside their flat led to a consumer forum ruling that charging a separate emergency visit fee during the warranty period amounts to an unfair trade practice.The Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional) directed Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd to compensate a consumer, Ritul Gabani, on finding that the company charged him Rs 400 for an emergency technician visit despite the product being under warranty.Gabani had bought a digital lock for his flat in Katargam. On Oct 23 last year, the lock allegedly jammed, leaving family members unable to leave the flat.Gabani then contacted the company’s customer care service and requested urgent assistance. He was told that a technician would visit only after payment of a Rs 400 visitation charge.The complainant argued that the lock was under warranty and charging a separate fee for an emergency service visit was unjustified. He paid the sum because he could not repair the lock himself nor engage another technician without risking the warranty.Gabani subsequently approached the consumer commission and filed a complaint on Dec 29.At the hearing, he argued: “When I bought the lock, no demonstration was given for it. At the same time, such visitation charge is an unfair trade practice and exploitation of the customer.”The company’s advocate maintained that the lock was functioning properly at the time of purchase and that there was no manufacturing defect. The company further submitted that service had been provided during the warranty period and that all parts were repairable or replaceable.The commission observed that the consumer had a genuine need for technical assistance because he could not remove or repair the lock on his own.“The amount collected as visitation charges, despite the product being under warranty, amounted to an unfair trade practice. Looking at the receipt of the visit charges of Rs 400, it is proven that company has resorted to an unfair trade practice. The consumer had suffered mental harassment and inconvenience because of the company’s conduct,” the commission observed.The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the company to refund the Rs 400 with 7% annual interest.It also awarded Rs 1,000 towards mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs 500 towards litigation expenses.
