The Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional) has directed Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd to refund a Rs 400 emergency technician visit fee charged to a customer whose digital lock jammed while under warranty. The commission also awarded compensation for mental harassment and inconvenience, along with litigation expenses.
The case was filed by Ritul Gabani, who had purchased the digital lock for his flat in Katargam, Surat. On October 23 last year, the lock allegedly jammed, leaving members of his family unable to leave the flat. Gabani contacted the company’s customer care service and requested urgent technical assistance.
According to the report, the company told him that a technician would visit only after he paid a Rs 400 visitation charge. Gabani paid the amount because he could not repair the lock himself or engage another technician without potentially affecting the product warranty. He later approached the consumer commission and filed a complaint on December 29.
Gabani told the commission that no demonstration had been provided when he bought the lock. He argued that charging a separate visitation fee for an emergency service during the warranty period was unjustified and amounted to exploitation of the customer.
The company’s advocate argued that the lock had been functioning properly when it was purchased and that there was no manufacturing defect. The company also submitted that service had been provided during the warranty period and that all parts were repairable or replaceable.
The commission found that Gabani had a genuine need for technical assistance because he could neither remove nor repair the lock on his own. It observed that collecting visitation charges despite the product being under warranty amounted to an unfair trade practice. The commission also referred to the receipt for the Rs 400 payment while reaching its finding.
The order partly allowed the complaint and directed the company to refund the Rs 400 with 7% annual interest. Godrej & Boyce was additionally ordered to pay Rs 1,000 for mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs 500 towards litigation expenses. The ruling places the question of emergency technician charges within the wider consumer dispute over what warranty service should cover when a home security product becomes unusable.
