For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Sood, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Exparte For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate Dated : 29th October, 2014 ORDER Heard. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, that impugned order dated 20.03.2013, passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan while deciding the petitioners appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal. 3. Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against the petitioner as well as Respondent No.2, alleging deficiency on their part, as its claims were wrongly rejected. 4. Petitioner contested the same by filing its written statement. 5. After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 12.10.2012, allowed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its impugned order dated 20.03.2013, dismissed the same. 7. Hence, the present revision. 8. The impugned order dated 20.03.2013 read as under: “This appeal has been presented by the appellant respondent against order dated 12.10.2012 passed by District Forum, Ajmer. Learned advocate for the appellant was heard in detail and file was studied. After looking into entire facts of the dispute and evidence in detail, order has been passed by the subordinate District Forum. Therefore we do not find any justification for looking into entire facts of the dispute and evidence again. Looking into facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order dated 12.10.2012 passed in Dispute No. 35/2012 by the learned District Forum, Ajmer. Because appropriate relief has been provided to the complainant by the District Forum upon the facts available in the record, with correct discretion, therefore no ground is made out for interfering in it. Thus, no gist appears in the appeal on merits. Otherwise, consumer protection Act has been made for providing quick and simple redressal of the disputes, consumer expects quick justice upon his dispute. Therefore upon his dispute, therefore ordinary judicial process has been kept at a distance in this Act. District Forum and commission have to dispose quickly dispute and appeal in accordance with the principles of natural justice. If commission does not find any error in the findings and relief which have been given by the District Forum with discretion, on the grounds of evidence and documents available in the file, in that case their remains no necessity, in accordance with the intentions of the Act, for analyzing again entire facts and evidence. The sub clause of this Act will be in addition to sub clauses of any other law and the same will not be in their deficiency, it is also original intention of Act 1986. Therefore order dated 12.10.2012 passed in Dispute No.35/2012 by the District Forum, Ajmer is verified. If appellant had deposited any amount before the District Forum, Ajmer in the above mentioned appeal, then he will be at liberty to withdraw the same. A period on one month is given to the appellant from today for complying with the order of the District Forum District Forum, Ajmer.” 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 either of the parties. 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 petitioners. 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 one year, from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 05.12.2014. 16. Dasti. | 
