Notice issued to Respondents No.1 has been duly served. But there is no appearance on behalf of R-1. Hence, respondent No.1 is proceeded ex parte.

2.         It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 23.5.2013, passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan while deciding the petitioner’s appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal.

3.  Petitioner/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties, alleging deficiency on their part.

4.         Both respondents contested the complaint by filing their written statements.

5.         After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 29.7.2006, allowed the complaint.

6.         Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal for enhancement before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its impugned order dated 23.5.2013, dismissed the same.

7.         The impugned order read as under:-

“This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 29.7.2006 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur-II.

Learned counsels for the parties are heard in detail and the record was perused.

The Subordinate District Forum has passed the order after detailed discussion of all the facts and evidence of the complaint. Therefore, we do not find any further justification in re-inducting the facts and evidence of the complaint. Looking to the  facts and circumstances,  the order dated 29.7.2006 passed in the complaint  No.494/2005 by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur, does not find any fault. Since the District Forum has granted the appropriate relief to the complainant on the basis of facts came on
 

record by applying proper prudence, in which there is no basis to interfere. Besides it, there appears no substance in the appeal on its merit and demerits.

Otherwise also, the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for expeditious and simple disposal of the consumer disputes. The consumer expects early and expeditious justice on the complaint.  Therefore, under the Act of 1986, general judicial procedure has been kept away. The District Forum and the Commission have to dispose of the complaint and appeal expeditiously as per the principles of natural justice. If the finding and relief granted by applying proper prudence on the basis of the documents available on record and evidence are not finding any fault by the Commission and District Forum then there remains no need to reanalyze the facts and evidence as per the spirit of the Act of 1986.  The basic intent of Section 3 of the Act  of 1986 is also this that in execution of time, the provisions of the Act are in addition to any other provisions of law and not in their derogation.

Therefore, the order dated 29.7.2006 passed in complaint No.494/2005, by the District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits.”

8.         Hence, the present revision.

9.         After going through the order, we are shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. It has not mentioned even the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any of the submissions made by the petitioner for enhancement. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeal. For the knowledge of the State Commission, we hereby quote the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to disposal of first appeal.

10. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held ;

"4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows;

                                 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 :

 ‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We  do  not find any legal infirmity  in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal.  Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal'.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter.

The appellant 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”.

11.  Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s)8811/2009,decided on 21.2.2011, Hon'ble Apex Court observed ;

"A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons,  even though in  brief, vide

Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons".

12.  Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind.

13.       Hence, we hereby set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition. Consequently, we remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with mandate of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14.  The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of this order.

15.       Parties to appear before the State Commission on 24.09.2014.

16.       Dasti.