This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 224/2010, ATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Narender Kumarvide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 27.11.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur in consumer complaint no. 888/2009, allowing the complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Narender Kumar insured his cow for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the scheme launched by the petitioner/OP, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. in the month of February 2008. The cow was tagged vide no. B-34779/-. The said cow got sick on 4.09.2008, but could not recover and expired on 06.09.2008. The complainant informed Mr. Lalit Sharma, an employee of the OP and handed over tag no. B-34779 to him. He also filed his claim along with the documents, but despite many telephone calls and personal visits, the claim was not sanctioned. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide their order dated 27.11.2008, allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- as damages for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide their order dated 03.06.2011. The present revision petition has been filed against this order. 3. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 was not a speaking order and seems to have been passed without due application of mind. It was the duty of the State Commission to have analysed the facts of the case and then give reasons for coming to their conclusion. The matter, therefore, required a re-look by the State Commission and their plea should be properly heard and decided. 4. An examination of the order passed by the State Commission reveals that the said Commission has not given any reasons for coming to the conclusion for dismissing the appeal. The order passed by the State Commission reads as follows:- eard arguments. Records perused. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the District Forum in complaint No. 888/2009 and thus the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the District Forum in complaint No. 888/2009 is hereby up-held and appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. 5. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the right of appeal has been given under section 15 of the Act. It is the duty of the appellate authority to provide proper hearing to the parties in question and then give cogent reasons after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case for coming to a conclusion. In the present case, no such reasons have been advanced by the State Commission and the appeal has been dismissed without discussing the merits of the case. 6. In the light of these facts, there is no alternative but to set aside the order passed by the State Commission and we order accordingly. The revision petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the State Commission with the directions that the parties should be heard again and a detailed speaking order passed after giving detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion. There shall be no order as to costs.