PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 567 of 2012 – General Post Office through Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Rahul & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that complainant/respondent, minor, opened Provident Fund Account (PPF) No.303038 dated 14.9.2001 with an amount of Rs.60,000/- and another Provident Fund Account (PPF) No. 303041 dated 20.9.2001 with an amount of Rs.40,000/- and amount was deposited for a period upto 20.9.2010. Complainant was also given coupon, Gold Coin and one Silver Coin, etc., by the OP and OP issued passbook. OP by letter dated 18.9.2010 intimated to the complainant that as complainant has opened two accounts; second account is irregular in contravention of PPF Rule and will not carry interest and OP vide cheque dated 27.1.2011 returned amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per Rule 3(6) of PPF Rules 1968, one person can open only one account in his name and if more than one account is opened, subsequent account will be treated as irregular account which will not carry any interest so interest was not payable on second account and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 & 2/petitioner to pay interest on Rs.40,000/- on second account upto its maturity date. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 4. None appeared for Respondent No. 1 & 4 and they were proceeded ex-parte. 5. Heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum allowed complaint contrary to rules and learned State Commission dismissed appeal without considering petitioner’s grounds of appeal by a non-speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as District Forum has already dealt with all the contentions, hence, revision petition be dismissed. 7. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner declined to grant interest on second PPF account on the ground that as per rules, no person can open two PPF account and if more than one account is opened, subsequent account will be treated as irregular and will not carry interest. Learned State Commission in the impugned order has not dealt with any ground taken in memo of appeal and has simply stated that they do not find any illegality in the order of District Forum which calls for an interference and appeal was dismissed without assigning any reasons. 8. Perusal of impugned order reveals 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. 9. 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”. 10. 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. 11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 567 of 2012 – General Post Office through Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Rahul & Ors. 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. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 9.9.2014. A copy of this order may be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur. | 
