PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

 These revision petitions involve similar question of law, hence decided by common order.

2.      These Revision Petitions were filed by the petitioner against order dated 27.02.2013 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Jaipur, Bench No. 1 (in short, ‘the State Commission’)  ---  RP/2354/2013 in Appeal No. 620/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage Vs. M/s Ambika Traders;  RP/2349/2013 in Appeal No. 273/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. M/s Shri Anil Kumar, Amit Kumar Kirana Stockist;  RP/2350/2013 in Appeal No. 274/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. Shri Ganesh Oil & Flour Mills & Anr.; RP/2351/2013 in Appeal No. 275/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. Kaila Devi Enterprises;  RP/2352/2013 in Appeal No. 595/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. M/s Mohan & Brothers;  RP/2353/2013 in Appeal No. 613/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage Vs. M/s Bajranglal Shyam Sundar;  RP/3550/2013 in Appeal No. 234/2012 – M/s Shri Ganesh Oil & Flour Mills Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr.;  RP/3551/2013 in Appeal No. 626/2012 – M/s Bajrang Lal Shyam Sunder  Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr.;  RP/3552/2013 in Appeal No. 627/2012 – M/s Mohan & Brothers  Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr.;  by which while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaints was upheld.

3.      Complainants by filing separate complaints submitted that they put their bags of Kirana items in cold storage of opposite party for safety and preservation.  They approached opposite party to take back delivery of goods.  Opposite party informed that goods were destroyed in fire and did not return goods inspite of notice.  Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party – Cold Storage, complainants filed complaints before District Forum.  Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainants kept goods in cold storage with commercial purpose.  It was further submitted that fire in the cold storage was due to short circuit which is an act of God and opposite party cannot be held responsible and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District forum, by separate orders, allowed complaints and directed opposite party to make payment along with interest.  Appeals filed by the opposite party and some of the complainants for enhancement were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned orders against which these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

4.      None appeared for the respondent in RP/2354/2013 even after publication in paper and he was proceeded ex-parte.

5.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

6.      Learned counsel for M/s Sarju Cold Storage submitted that there was delay of two days in filing some revision petitions, which may be condoned.  As there was delay of only two days, we deem it appropriate to condone delay in filing revision petitions and delay stands condoned.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainants also filed application for condonation of delay in revision petitions no. 3551 & 3552/2013 and submitted that delay of 116 days in filing revision petitions may be condoned.  As cross revision petitions have been filed by the parties and order of learned State Commission is not a speaking order and matters have to be remanded back to learned State Commission, we deem it appropriate to allow application for condonation of delay for the reasons mentioned in the application.  Consequently, delay in filing both revision petitions stand condoned.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner-opposite party submitted that learned State Commission has not dealt with any ground taken in memo of appeal and impugned order is not a speaking order, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  Learned counsel for the complaints-respondents also submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and has not dealt with grounds raised in memo of appeal, hence revision petitions be allowed and matters may be remanded back.

9.      Perusal of impugned orders reveal that learned State Commission has neither discussed facts of the case, nor contentions of the appellant raised in memo of appeal whereas learned State Commission ought to have discussed all the facts and legal issues raised by the parties.       

10.    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”.

11.    In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the facts 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.

12.     Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27-02-2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Commission,  Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 620/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage Vs. M/s Ambika Traders;  Appeal No. 273/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. M/s Shri Anil Kumar, Amit Kumar Kirana Stockist;  Appeal No. 274/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. Shri Ganesh Oil & Flour Mills & Anr.; Appeal No. 275/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. Kaila Devi Enterprises;  Appeal No. 595/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage vs. M/s Mohan & Brothers;  Appeal No. 613/2012 – M/s Sarju Cold Storage Vs. M/s Bajranglal Shyam Sundar;  Appeal No. 234/2012 – M/s Shri Ganesh Oil & Flour Mills Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr.;  Appeal No. 626/2012 – M/s Bajrang Lal Shyam Sunder  Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr. and  Appeal No. 627/2012 – M/s Mohan & Brothers  Vs. M/s Sarju Cold Storge & Anr.;Appeal No. 567 of 2012 – General Post Office through Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Rahul & Ors. is set aside and matters are remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding them by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

13.    Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 12-09-2014.