APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Naveen Kumar Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent Ms. Govind Narayan, Advocate Ms. Aneeta Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Satish Mishra, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 5th DECEMBER 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 09.04.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 905/2012, hriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Jamshed Khan & Anr. vide which while dismissing appeal, the order dated 12.06.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, in consumer case No. 1146/2011, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Jamshed Khan got his vehicle, truck no. RJ 02 GA 4192 insured with the petitioner/OP vide policy no. 10004/31/11/029678 for the period from 11.03.2011 to 10.03.2012 on comprehensive basis. The said truck was travelling from Kolkata to Alwar on 27.05.2011, when the front tyre of the said truck suddenly burst, due to which there was sparking in the diesel tank and the truck caught fire and got completely burnt. An intimation was given to the Insurance Company which appointed a surveyor to carry out the spot survey. The complainant then brought the truck to Alwar with the help of crane by spending a sum of `25,000/-. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sirsi Ganj, Firozabad regarding this incident as per FIR No. 14 dated 28.05.2011. It has been stated in the complaint that the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company found the truck completely burnt. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for reimbursement of claim amount of `14,20,000/- with interest and further compensation etc. However, the claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded in violation of the policy condition, due to which the alleged incident happened. It was also stated that the forged Lodged Challan has been produced by the claimant. The loss assessed as per the surveyor report is `9 lakh. The OP No. 2 Bank alleged that on 1.05.2012, the loan amount due towards the said vehicle was `12,21,186.17ps. and requested for refund of the loan amount. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum on 19.12.2011 and the said Commission vide their order passed on 12.06.2012, allowed the complaint and directed that the Insurance Company should pay the loan amount of `12,21,186.17ps. with any interest etc. The balance amount and another sum of `5,000/- should be paid to the complainant for mental harassment and litigation expenses. It was observed by the District Forum that no specific evidence had been produced by the OP Insurance Company in support of their version that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was overloaded or any fake Load Challan was produced. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was dismissed by the State Commission on 09.04.2013. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made. 3. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and stated that the Insurance Policy was a contract between the insured and the insurer, and hence the terms and conditions of the said contract have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. He pointed out that as per the terms and conditions in case of over-loading etc., the Insurance Company was not bound to pay for the claim and hence, the lower courts had taken an erroneous view of the facts and circumstances on record. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the District Forum had rightly observed that there was no specific evidence in support of the version that the vehicle was over-loaded at the time of accident or any fake Load Challan has been produced. 4. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the petitioner/OP on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was overloaded and hence, there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement; so the Insurance Company had no liability to pay the amount of claim to the complainant. The District Forum found that no specific evidence to support the version of the insurance company had been produced on record. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint, but in the First Appeal filed before the State Commission, although the order of District Forum has been upheld, but the learned State Commission has not given any specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law. A mere perusal of the order passed by the State Commission reveals that the State Commission has not carried out any analysis of the facts on record and given reasons for supporting the version of the complainant. It is a matter of common jurisprudence that any party to the litigation has a right to file Appeal and the concerned Authority is duty bound to discuss their view point and then give cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at their conclusion. 5. Honle Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: . 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 6. In view of the discussion above, it is held that the State Commission should hear the parties in detail and pronounce a speaking order by carrying out detailed analysis of the facts on record. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission with a direction to hear the parties again and then pass a detailed speaking order as stated above. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.03.2014.