Heard. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 17.5.2013, passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan while deciding the petitioner’s appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal. 3. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against the petitioner, alleging deficiency on their part. 4. Petitioner contested the same by filing their written statements. 5. After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 28.2.2013, allowed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its impugned order dated 17.5.2013, dismissed the same. 7. The impugned order read as under:- “The counsel for the appellant is heard in detail and perused the record. Learned lower District Forum has passed the order after considering all the facts of complaint and evidence in detail. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate to reconsider the all facts of complaint and evidence. We do not find any error/illegality in the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by Learned District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No.970/2012. Therefore, we do not find any merit to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the District Forum on the basis of the facts on record providing appropriate remedy to the complainant. Therefore, no ground is made out on merit in appeal. Even otherwise Consumer Protection Act is enacted to provide summary and simple procedure to retrieve the grievance of the consumers. Consumers expect quick and easy justice on his complaint therefore the ordinary judicial process is avoided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. District Forum and State Commission has to decide the complaint and appeal quickly on the basis of principles of natural justice. If the commission finds no illegality in the findings based upon evidence and documents available on record and relief based upon right erudition/wisdom, then as per the stance of Consumer Protection Act 1986 there is no need to reconsider all the facts and evidence. Even as per the basic spirit of the 1986 Act as provided under Section 3, the provision of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the District Forum in complaint no.970/2012 is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. If the appellant has deposited any money with District Forum he is free to recover it. Appellant is granted one month’s time from today to comply with the order of the District Forum.” 8. Hence, the present revision. 9. After going through the order, we are shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. It has not mentioned even the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any of the submissions made by the petitioners. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeal. For the knowledge of the State Commission, we hereby quote the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to disposal of first appeal. 10. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held ; "4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows; In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms : ‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal'. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellant forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission”. 11. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s)8811/2009,decided on 21.2.2011, Hon'ble Apex Court observed ; "A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons". 12. Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind. 13. Hence, we hereby set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition. Consequently, we remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with mandate of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner has not paid the sum of Rs.5,000/- in terms of order dated 2.8.2013. It is, therefore, directed that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing which is fixed before the State Commission by way of demand draft. In case, petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent then present petition shall automatically stand dismissed. 15. The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of this order. 16. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 23.09.2014. 17. Dasti. | 
