The petitioners of above noted revision petitions being aggrieved of the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 16.12.2013 have preferred these revision petitions. 2. Shri Vijay Pal Sharma and Shri Mudhit Sharma, Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners have contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non-speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the petitioners in their memorandum of appeals have not been addressed to. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits. 3. Shri Dheeraj Sharma, respondent No.1 who is an advocate on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the State Commission has taken into account overall facts and the evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur. Thus, he has urged us to dispose of the revision petitions. 4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 5. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on the law with regard to the hearing of appeal. In the matter of HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission Haryana with the following observations: “5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties. 6. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” 6. Now, we proceed to analyse the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court. Impugned order of the State Commission is reproduced as under: “The subordinate District Forum after considering the entire facts and evidence in detail has passed the order. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reassess the entire facts and evidence. In the facts and circumstances no defect is found in the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the District Forum-II, Jaipur in complaint No.1133/2012. Since District Forum on the basis of facts came on record and with correct prudent has given the relief to the complainant in which no basis is made out to interference and no substance is appeared in the merits of the appeal. Otherwise the Consumer Protection Act has been made to give the speedy and simple disposal of the Consumer cases. The consumer expects the speedy justice in his complaint therefore the general legal practice has been kept away in the act of 1986. The District Forum and State Commission have to decide the complaint and appeal expeditiously according to the natural justice. When State Commission does not find any error in the finding given by the District Forum on the basis of evidence and documents available in the file then no need remains to reassess the entire facts and evidence as per the spirit of the act of 1986. According to Section 3 of the Act of 1986 the main spirit of the Act is that the provisions of this act are in addition to the other Acts and not in the deficiency or decreasing. Therefore, the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II in complaint No.1133/2012 is confirmed and appeal is dismissed on merits. If appellant has deposited any amount before the District Forum then he will be free to get it back. The appellant is given one month’s time from today to make the compliance of the order passed by the District Forum.” 7. On reading of the above, it is evident that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners in a casual manner. The State Commission has neither referred to the facts of the case nor it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for the rejection of those grounds and appeal. It has only observed that after going through the order of the District Forum the State Commission is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the order. Thus, the impugned order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order. As such it cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the revision petitions are accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order within three months. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.10.2014. 10. Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. | 
