Heard.

2.       It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, that impugned order dated 18.04.2013, 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 in service and unfair trade practice on its part.

4.       Petitioner contested the same by filing its written statement.

5.       After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur City (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 21.06.2011, allowed the complaint.

6.       Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its impugned order dated 18.04.2013, partly allowed the same.

7.       Hence, the present revision.

8.       The impugned order dated 18.04.2013 read as under:

          “This appeal has been filed by the appellant after being aggrieved by the order dated 21-06-2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum II Jaipur whereby the complaint of complainant was allowed and appellant/respondent was ordered to that respondent shall pay within two months from the date of this order to complainant Rs.1961/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 05-02-2010 and also respondent shall pay Rs.2,50,000/- for the mental agony and out of that amount Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to complainant and remaining Rs.2,10,000/- shall be paid in the account of State Consumer Welfare Fund and cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/- is also pay.

          We have heard the counsel of appellant as well respondent and perused the file.

          The subordinate forum has passed the judgment after considering all facts and evidence of the complaint; hence there is no reason to further make examination of all the facts and evidence of complaint and we did not find any error in impugned judgment dated 21-06-2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum II Jaipur in the view of the facts and circumstances in the complaint No.278/2010 as the just relief has been granted by the District Forum which did not consider the interference of this commission and there is no merit in the appeal also; as far as the question of compensation is imposed on the respondent in the impugned judgment dated 2-06-2011, that appears excessive and hence the compensation is reduced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- which shall be payable to complainant/respondent.

Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act is passed for the speedy disposal of case of the consumer and in easy way.  Consumer disputes requires forthwith disposal of case and justice hence the general judicial process is kept in abeyance in this act.  The District Forum and Commission have to decided the complaint and appeal speedily with due compliance of principle of natural justice; if the award of the District Forum is on the due consideration of facts and evidence present in the file and finding is made with proper reasoning and there is no error then there is no need for the re-examination for the facts and evidence and this essence is made in section 3 of Act and it is held that provision of this act is extra to other act’s provision and not supplemental.

          Hence there is amendment in the order dated 21-06-2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum II Jaipur in the complaint No.278/2010 to this effect that compensation amount for the mental agony of the complainant shall be reduced to Rs.50,000/- payable to complainant/respondent.  The cost of litigation is also affirmed Rs.3,000/-. The appeal is disposed off with aforesaid modification.  If appellant had already deposited some amount in the District Forum in respect to this appeal then he will be free to get the money.  The appellant is granted one month time for the compliance of order of District Forum. ”

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 either of the parties. 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.  The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of this order.

15.     Parties to appear before the State Commission on 19.12.2014.

16.     Dasti.