Delay of 97 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondents/complainants had opened two Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) Accounts of Rs.50,000/- each with the petitioner through Pankaj Gupta, agent of the petitioner.  Respondents filed the complaint alleging that when he approached the petitioner for payment of the amount deposited by him, he came to know that the petitioner on 17.01.2006 and 18.02.2006 had made payment of the

-2-

said amounts to its agent Pankaj Gupta on the basis of forged signatures.  That he had made an application to the petitioner to refund the said amount but no action was taken.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainants against the Account opened by them.  District Forum also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal.

          Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the revision petition.

          On perusal of the order, we found that the order of the State Commission was a non-speaking order.  The State Commission being the first court of appeal was required to record reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. 

          Limited notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

          The State Commission being the first court of appeal is court of law and facts.  It was required to record reasons in support of conclusion arrived at.  The State Commission has dismissed the appeal by simply observing that the order of the District Forum, which is based on facts, does not require to be interfered with.  The State Commission has neither recorded the contentions raised by the parties nor has recorded any reasons in support of conclusion arrived at.  The order of the State Commission being a non-speaking order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.12.2011.

          The State Commission shall, thereafter, pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.