SURESH CHANDRA This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Jaipur (in short, he District Forum against the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission, in appeal no. 937 of 2010. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant was issued a credit card bearing no.5543-7873-8068-7140 in November 2005 by the petitioner Bank. Alleging arbitrary and unilateral imposition of late charges/penalties in his card account, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Bank for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before the District Forum. On being noticed, the petitioner resisted the complaint denying the allegation of the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing them, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.396.29 with 9% interest to the complainant within two months besides payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.2,500/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner challenged the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. 4. We have heard Mr Ajay A Monga learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr J P Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the State Commission in violation of principles of natural justice. He pointed out that on the face of it the State Commission has passed a brief order without giving any reasons what so ever in support of the view taken by it while dismissing the appeal, but only by stating that there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. He further submitted that the State Commission did not even advert to the grounds and the pleas raised by the petitioner in its memo of appeal and a perusal of the order would show that there is no discussion at all on the exorbitant amount of compensation which was challenged by the petitioner. He, therefore, argued that such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the matter needs to be considered in the light of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner Bank with reference to the allegations contained in the complaint. 6. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant had also filed an appeal before the State Commission for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals by a common impugned order. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner the State Commission simply observed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the same are based on the pleadings of the parties in which no interference is required. Regarding the appeal of the respondent/complainant, the State Commission has said that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in its view the compensation awarded by the District Forum is appropriate and hence, no basis for enhancing the same. It is thus clear that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is cryptic and non-speaking since no reasons have been given for the view taken by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In such a situation, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the board of the State Commission for fresh decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties and deciding the appeal by passing a speaking order. 7. The revision petition stands allowed in terms of these directions and parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13th December 2012.