No one appears on behalf of respondent even on the second call despite service of notice through Regd. A.D.post in R.P. No. 2874 of 2013. We may note that in the other revision petitions also, notice was sent at the same address but A.D. cards have not been received. Since the registered notice of the respondent at correct address was put in postal process, there is presumption of service particularly when A.D. pertaining to one of the revision petition have been received back. Since respondents have failed to put their appearance, they are proceeded ex parte. 2. This revision is directed against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 31.05.2013, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 appellant in the appeal 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. 4. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: n the basis of evidence and material on record after arriving at a finding the District Forum has used proper discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respondent / complainant. We find no error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal. It is also well settled that in case we accept the findings and discretion used by the District Forum, we are not required to refer again the entire evidence on record and give our own findings. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to provide an additional speedy remedy to protect the rights of a common consumer. As per section 3 of the Act the provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Even normal procedure of other laws have intentionally been omitted except for following the principles of natural justice to provide a speedy remedy to the consumer preferably within the stipulated time. The complaints and even the appeals have to be decided summarily after giving due opportunity to the other party. After having considered entire facts and circumstances since proper discretion has been used by the District Forum in granting appropriate relief to the respondent / complainant, we find no merit in the present appeal and same is dismissed accordingly. 5. On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner 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 rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order as such not sustainable. Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the 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: . 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. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity being non-speaking order and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 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 referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 06.03.2014. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the appearance of the parties before there.