O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a glass top 3N5 gas stove from OP shop by paying Rs.5,200/- with exchange of old stove on 18-5-2009. For which OP deducted Rs.1000/- and at the same time OP received Rs.5200/- towards new gas stove, had issued a receipt for the same. The OP supplied the gas stove which was defective one means the vessels became black by the flame generated out of the stove. The complainant intimated the problem she was facing in the stove immediately to the OP to rectify since it has one year warranty. She has spoken to OP several times but OP did not respond to her and did not rectify the defect. The complainant sent written complaint to OP on 30-3-2010 by register post requesting to replace the stove or otherwise return the money within 5 days. It was refused by the OP and returned with postal shara “Not claimed”. Hence complainant approached forum seeking relief to direct the OP to refund Rs.5,200/- alongwith her old stove and compensation of Rs.7,200/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice sent to OP by RPAD was returned as “Not claimed” So it is considered as served on OP. OP was absent on the date he was called upon to appear, no one represented the OP. Hence, he is placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry, complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating what is stated in the complaint. Heard arguments of complainant, who is in person and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. In accordance with the exchange offer announced by the OP, complainant exchanged her old gas stove with the intention to buy new model alongwith two more items. For the stove, complainant had paid Rs.5,200/- towards the cost of the product after deduction of Rs.1,000/- for exchange of old stove. After using the gas stove complainant found that there was defect in the said goods that the vessels became black by the flame generated out of the stove and the same has been intimated several times to OP, requested OP to replace the item. But OP neither rectified the problem nor replaced the product. Complainant sent written complaint to the OP for replacement or to refund the amount, OP had refused to receive the same which is produced before the forum. It shows that the OP is negligent towards consumers once their product has been sold. <br /> <br /> 5. It consumer face any problem within short time of his/her purchase by paying sale consideration of the goods, it is the duty of seller to consider his grievance to rectify it, when it is within the warranty period , if the product cannot be rectified any alternative solution could be found which is acceptable by the consumer. In such cases like exchange offer announced by OP to attract people to introduce new models, OP has to be very keen to satisfy the consumers. OP did not do so. It indicates that OP is deficient in his service and he is liable to compensate the complainant because she paid for that. There is no meaning in keeping waste product by investing on it.<br /> <br /> 6. These facts have not been specifically denied by the OP in spite of opportunity given to him. In the absence of specific denial by the OP, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged and un-controverted. We find no reason to disbelieve the claim of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant as found from her complaint after purchase of stove on 18-5-2009 for the first time complained to the OP on 30-3-2010 complaining that her vessels used on stove are becoming black due to smoke generated from stove. It looks that the OP did not respond to that letter and to the call of the complainant. Having found that the OP is deficient in his service, we find that the complainant has used this stove for considerable time and till date as she has not stated any where that she is not using stove. Therefore some percentage of depreciation is to be allowed while working out the money to be refunded. The complainant has stated, the original cost of the stove was Rs.6200/-, she gave old stove as an exchange for Rs.1,000/- and paid the balance cost of Rs.5,200/- to the OP. if we order for return of complainant’s to old stove it might have not been preserved by OP. Therefore giving depreciation for Rs.1,000/- for using of this stove after it was purchased OP in our view is to be ordered to refund of Rs.5,200/- to the complainant with this we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay Rs.5,200/- to the complainant the cost of the stove she paid to him within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> The complainant shall return the stove to the OP, OP shall also pay cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. <br />