PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, the State Commission) dated 17.1.2014 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum-3rd , Jaipur. 2. Sh. Ankit Acharya, 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. 3. Sh. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum-3rd , Jaipur. Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition. 4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: “Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the case. The subordinate District Forum, after careful and detailed analysis of all the facts and evidence, has passed the order. Hence, we do not find any justification to make the analysis of all the facts and evidence of this complaint again. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the Order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur. As the District Forum has applied the right brainpower on the facts came on record, there becomes no ground to interfere in the same. Besides above, there seems no summary in the Appeal on merits also. Hence, the Order dated 16.11.2011 passed in the Complaint no.538/2009 by the District Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur is confirmed and the Appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits. The complainant will be entitled to get the amount deposited before the District Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur with earned benefit. The appellant is allowed with the period of one month from today for the balance compliance of the Orders” 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: “This appeal was presented on behalf of the appellant/opp. Party against the order dated 17.10.2013 of the District Forum, Jaipur 3rd, Jaipur. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant was heard at length and record was studied. The Ld. District Forum has passed its order after examining entire facts and evidence at length. Therefore, we do not find any jurisdiction in re-examining the entire facts and evidence. We do not find any error committed by Ld. District Forum in passing its order dated 17.10.2013 in complaint No.1351/2012 (old No.235/2010) in view of facts and circumstances of the complaint. Since the District Forum has provided appropriate relief to the complainant on the facts brought on record with right prudence, in which there makes out no ground for interference. Moreover, there does not appear any substance in the appeal for its disposal on merits. Otherwise also, Consumer Protection Act has been formulated for fast and easy disposal of consumer disputes.. Consumer expects fast and immediate justice on his complaint, therefore, general judicial proceedings have been kept aloof from the Act, 1986. District Forum and Commission is expected to dispose of complaint and appeal in accordance with the principle of natural justice. If the Commission, District Forum do not find any error in respect of finding given on the basis of documents and evidence available on record with correct prudence then there is no need to re-analyze all facts and evidence in accordance to the intent of Act. It is the original intent of Section 3 of the Act, 1986 that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the District Forum Jaipur 3rd, Jaipur in compliant No.1351/2012 (Old No.235/2010) is hereby confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed on merits. If any amount was deposited by the appellant before the Ld. District Forum then he would be independent to receive it back. Time of one month from today is provided to the appellant for the compliance of order of the District Forum.” 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. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.1.2015. Since the matter is already delayed for quite some time, State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal on the same date, if possible, or latest within three months. 7. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. | 
