PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 703/2013 – Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaisaram by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent’s vehicle No. RJ 37 GA 4575 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 25.5.2011 to 24.05.2012. Vehicle met with an accident on 7.1.2012 and Rs.5,56,973/- was spent on its repairing. OP released Rs.2,98,000/- on 5.3.2012 in favour of the complainant who accepted the aforesaid amount under protest. Rest of the amount was not released by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as complainant accepted amount in full and final settlement, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.52,190/- with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and has not considered grounds taken in memo of appeal; 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/complainant submitted that as learned District forum had already discussed all aspects, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Order of learned State Commission runs as under: “Learned lower District Forum has passed the order after considering all the facts of complaint and evidence in detail. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate to reconsider the all facts of complaint and evidence. We do not find any error in the order dated 30.5.2013 passed by Learned District Forum, Nagaur in Complaint case No. 139/2012. Therefore, we do not find any merit to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the District Forum on the basis of the facts on record providing appropriate remedy to the complainant. Therefore, no ground is made out on merit in appeal.” 7. This order neither contains facts of the case, nor contains grounds taken by the petitioner in memo of appeal, nor contains any decision on those points and in such circumstances; this order cannot be stated to be a speaking order. 8. 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”. 9. 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. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners are allowed and order dated 30.10.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 703/2013 – Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaisaram 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. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 17.11.2014. | 
