Since the order passed by the State Commission was a non-speaking order, limited notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.  State Commission has disposed of the appeal by observing thus :

“While considering the case of the parties and the subject matter relating to the charging of interst the DF appraising Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act stated that the Act is in addition to any other law for the time being in force.  The appellant / OP has not produced the relevant materials before the DF in support of is defense.  The DF has very well considered the available materials placed before it by the parties.  The Forum has also made very clear that the complainant has approached the District Forum with an allegation that the rate of interest is not according to the agreed terms.  To that effect the order passed by the District Forum has come out with cogent and substantial evidence by giving a finding that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.  The finding recorded by the District Forum does not suffer from any perverse, illegal or incorrectness.” 

        We are of the opinion that the State Commission, being the first court of appeal, was required to decide the appeal on facts as well as law.  It was also required to record reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at.  State Commission has simply endorsed the view taken by the District Forum without either recording the contentions of the parties or discussing the evidence on record. 

Since the order passed by the State Commission is a non-speaking order, the same is set aside.  The case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

        Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.10.2011.