PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 308/2012 Superintendent of Police Vs. Kumari Renu Agrawal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the complainant are that OP No. 1 is agent of OP No. 2 & 3 and runs business on commission basis. Complainant had been depositing Rs.620/- per month as Recurring Deposit (RD) with OP No. 1 through OP No. 1 husband Kamal Kishore Aggarwal-OP No. 4. OP No. 1 used to keep passbook after entry from OP No. 2. Initially, RD was for a period of 5 years, which was extended for another 5 years. After completion of second term, complainant contacted OP No. 2 for release of payment, but OP No. 2 asked complainant/Respondent to bring passbook. Complainant contacted OP No. 1, where OP No. 4 was also present and they demanded illegal amount for giving passbook and also insulted complainant and thus, they have committed unfair trade practice. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP No. 1 admitted depositing amount in RD by complainant through her, but submitted that passbook was returned to complainant father after entry. Further, denied allegations of demand of money and insulting. OP No. 4 submitted that maturity amount of first RD was obtained by father of the complainant in 1999 at his own level and further denied allegations levelled by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 submitted that complainant was directed to submit application along with passbook to obtain duplicate passbook for release of payment and denied any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing all the parties directed OP NO. 2-Petitioner to issue duplicate passbook if complainant submits application and documents for issuance of duplicate passbook and further directed to release payment with interest @ 8% p.a. OP No. 1 & 4 were directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and complaint was dismissed against OP No. 3. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record. Respondents have already been proceeded ex-parte. 4. 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. 5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has observed as under: eeping in view the facts and circumstances, we don find any error in the order dated 07.02.2012 passed in the Complaint No. 75/2011 by the learned District Forum, Seekar. As, the District Forum has applied the right mind on the records available on record, there becomes no ground to interfere in the same. Besides above, there seems no base in the appeal on merits also 6. 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 7. 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. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 04.06.2012 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. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 29.10.2013. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.