PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1419/2012 – Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Jaidayal Sharma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent filed application on 24.1.1980 for allotment of MIG-B category house in General Registration Scheme 1979 on hire purchase system and deposited Rs.4600/-. OP allotted seniority to the complainant but house was not alloltted for many years. OP orally assured to allot house within 6-7 years at price of Rs.42,000/-. Later on OP issued Self-Financing Scheme 2005 for previously registered applicants. Complainant submitted application for HIG house and deposited Rs.1,00,000/-, but applicants of 1989-90 got seniority in comparison to complainant who was registered in 1979. Later on, OP cancelled application of complainant in Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 and returned registration amount i.e. Rs.3,04,800/- with interest and deducted Rs.20,000/- illegally. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that registration of complainant was cancelled as he did not deposit the amount of Self-Financing Scheme and money was returned to him. OP raised other objections also and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot independent house of MiG-B category in Mansarover Scheme at a cost on which house was allotted to Sh. Dharam Chand and Shri. O.P. Sharan on 23.10.1989 and further allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed to refund Rs.20,000/- with interest. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. As there is delay of 10 days in filing revision petition, for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, delay is condoned. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has considered all aspects in detail and State Commission was not required to repeat the same things and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Learned State Commission while disposing of appeal, observed as under: “On 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.” 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: “1.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 HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’. 2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate 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”. 8. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1419/2012 – Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Jaidayal Sharma is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Learned State Commission is directed to decide appeal within 3 months. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 27.11.2014. | 
