PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 113/2014 – Mr. D.N. Maitra & Ors. Vs. K.S. Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. by which, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainants/petitioners booked a tour package to Kashmir with OP/respondent at a cost of Rs.1,10,000/-. Complainant alleged deficiency on the part of OP regarding hotel accommodation, vehicle provided to them and claimed compensation. Learned District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Complainant filed appeal for enhancement before State Commission and State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal in limine against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal in limine without dealing with the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission. 5. Impugned order passed by learned State Commission runs as under: “3. We have heard Shri Chetan Roy, Counsel for the appellant at length and gone through the case law cited by him. The total cost of the tour package was Rs.1,10,000/-. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% in our view is not inadequate.” 6. Learned State Commission observed that he heard petitioner’s Counsel at length and has gone through the case law cited by him, but learned State Commission has not dealt with any documents and case law and has simply held that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was not inadequate and dismissed appeal in limine. Learned State Commission ought to have dealt with all the grounds taken in memo of appeal and case law cited by appellant. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: “1.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 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”. 8. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and 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. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 113/2014 – Mr. D.N. Maitra & Ors. Vs. K.S. Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 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. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 17.11.2014. | 
