PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the learned District Forum in Complaint No. 183/2009 dated 14.3.2012 - Smt. Kusum Aggarwal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd.; hence, are decided by common order. 2. Revision Petition No. 3332 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 497 of 2012 Smt. Kusum Aggarwal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. by which, appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed in limine. 3. Revision Petition No. 444 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 723 of 2012 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusum Aggarwal by which, appeal was dismissed, as cross-appeal had already been disposed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased Truck No. HR-39A/3207 on 19.5.2004 after getting it financed from OP/ICICI Bank. Repayment was to be made in monthly instalments of Rs.22,000/-. Complainant paid 8 instalments. Due to some dispute with respect to the financed amount, OP wanted to take custody of the truck for which the complainant filed civil suit in which the OP was restrained from taking the custody of the truck. Inspite of that, OP took custody of truck on 21.9.2005. Criminal case was registered against the officials of the opposite party and complainant obtained truck on Superdargi on 18.11.2006. Again, OP snatched the truck from the driver of the complainant on 29.11.2006 and truck remained in illegal custody of OP upto 27.2.2009 and complainant was deprived of earning of Rs.40,000/- per month. On directions of the High Court, surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle on 6.9.2008 and assessed loss of Rs.6,45,150/-. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested the complaint and submitted that vehicle was taken into possession of OP, as complainant was defaulter in payment of instalments of loan and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,70,720/- on account of damages and further allowed Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation and interest. 5. Complainant filed Appeal No.497 of 2012 against the order of District Forum, which was dismissed in limine by learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 23.5.2012 against which, R.P. No. 3332 of 2012 has been filed. After dismissal of aforesaid appeal by State Commission, OP filed Appeal No.723 of 2012 on 7.6.2012 against the order of District Forum which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order on 15.10.2012 on the ground that in Cross Appeal No. 497 of 2012 filed by the complainant, order of District Forum has already been upheld against which, OP has filed R.P. No. 444 of 2013. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 7. Learned Counsel for the ICICI bank submitted that learned State Commission ought to have disposed appeal on merits and appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of upholding order of District Forum in cross appeal that too without hearing OP; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back for disposal of merits. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that if R.P. No. 444 of 2013 is allowed then in the interest of justice order dated 23.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission may also be set aside and case be remanded back to the learned State Commission. 8. Perusal of order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned State Commission reveals that appeal has not been decided on merits but has been dismissed as order of District Forum had been upheld in Cross Appeal No. 497 of 2012. Apparently, appeal of the OP could not have been dismissed only on the ground that in the cross appeal, for enhancement of compensation filed by the complainant, order has been upheld. In the cross appeal, complainant prayed for enhancement of compensation and in that appeal, illegality of order of District Forum was neither ascertained nor could have been decided because complainant filed appeal only for enhancement of compensation. In such circumstances, merely because order of District Forum had been upheld in cross appeal, appeal of the OP could not have been dismissed and it was obligatory on the part of State Commission to decide the appeal on merits. As appeal has not been decided on merits, revision petition is to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.10.2012 is to be set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission for disposal on merits. 9. R.P. No. 3332 of 2012 filed by the complainant against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission for enhancement of compensation can be decided independently by this Commission, but as order of District Forum itself will be under challenge before the State Commission. It would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 23.5.2012 and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission to decide both the appeals simultaneously by a common order. Learned Counsel for the parties have no objection in setting aside the order and remanding the matter back to the learned State Commission. 10. Consequently, Revision Petition No. 3332 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 23.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 497 of 2012 Smt. Kusum Aggarwal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. is set aside. Revision Petition No. 444 of 2013 filed by OP is allowed and impugned order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 723 of 2012 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusum Aggarwal is set aside. Both the appeals are remanded back to learned State Commission to decide both the appeals simultaneously by a common order after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. There shall be no order as to cost. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 15.1.2014.