PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 2087/11 M/s. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Parik & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 purchased two soft drink bottles of 600 ml. for a sum of Rs.40/- from OP No.1/Respondent No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 2/petitioner. Complainant/Respondent No.1 consumed one bottle and then started vomiting and had complained of stomach-ache. He then found ants and fungus in second bottle and took treatment for the disease sustained due to consumption of soft drink. Complainant contacted OP No. 1, who told that he sells bottles as received from the manufacturer. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs, filed complaint with District Forum. OP No.1 submitted that OP No. 1 apprised complainant that bottles sold by him were received from the manufacturing company, but admitted that second bottle contained ants and fungus and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 remained ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.40/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which, Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant and Rs.75,000/- to be deposited with State Consumer Welfare Fund and awarded Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has not dealt with the arguments submitted by the petitioner; hence, petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that District Forum has elaborately discussed submissions of the parties and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, petition be dismissed. 6. Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has observed as under: he District Forum below has passed the order after appreciating all the facts of the case and the evidence. Hence, we do not find to appraise the evidence and re-evaluate the evidence. In view of the facts and circumstances we do not find any error in the order dated 19.9.2011 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Since, the District Forum, as per record, has rightfully appreciated the facts and hence there is no ground for interference. This apart the appeal seems to be devoid of merits 7. Honle Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: .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: e 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 arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with 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 impugned order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned State Commission 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. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 04.10.2012. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.