We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent who is present in person. The case of the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum was that amount was deposited by him on 15.01.2007 as per the demand but the work of laying electricity line was not completed and the extension of the electricity supply of 10 HP was not affected within the given time. The complainant, therefore, alleged that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- due to negligence of the petitioner. The complainant alleged that there was loss of agricultural income. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. 2. Perusal of the order dated 1911.2010 reveals that the State Commission did not consider submissions and contentions of the revision petitioner. The impugned order is totally non-speaking order. Obviously, it will have to be said that the principle of natural justice are not followed while passing of the impugned order. Under the circumstances we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission. The appeal filed before the State Commission, i.e., FA No. 143 / 2009 shall be restored and shall be heard afresh. The parties are at liberty to place on record as may be deemed proper and the State Commission shall decide the matter on merits after considering the rival contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.09.2011. A copy of this order be given dasti.