The matter was passed over twice.

2.         On the second call also, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

3.         We have heard learned counsel for the respondent.

4.         The impugned order dated 20.5.2013 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.

5.         Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against the petitioners, alleging deficiency on their part.

6.         Petitioners contested the same by filing their written statements.

7.         After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur, Rajasthan (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 4.4.2013, allowed the complaint.

8.         Being aggrieved, petitioners filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its impugned order dated 20.5.2013, dismissed the same.

9.         The impugned order read as under:-

“Heard the counsel for the appellant in detail and perused the case file.

The subordinate District Forum has passed the order after discussing the entire facts and evidence of the complaint  in detail. Hence, we do not find any justification in reconsidering the entire  facts and evidence of the complaint. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order  passed by the learned District Forum, Nagpur in Complaint case No.97/2011. Since the District Forum has granted proper relief to the complainant after considering and deciding the facts came on record with correct discretion, in which there is no ground for interference. Further, on merits also no substance appears in the appeal.

 Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for providing an early and simple redressal of consumer disputes. The Consumer expects an early justice on his complaint and, therefore, Act of 1986 has been kept away from the General Judicial Procedure. The District Forum or Commission has to dispose of the complaint and appeal as early as possible in accordance with the principle of natural justice. If the Commission does not find any error in the relief granted by the District Forum on the basis of documents and evidence available on record and arrived at correct findings, then in accordance with the feelings of the Act of 1986, there is no need to re-analyze all the facts and evidence. As per feelings of Section-3 of the 1986 Act that for the implementation of time, the provisions of any other law shall be in addition to the provisions  of this Act.

Hence, the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the District Forum, Nagpur in Complaint No.97/2011 is hereby affirmed and appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed on merit.”

10.       Hence, the present revision.

11.       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 the petitioners. 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.

12.       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”.

13.       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".

14.       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.

15.       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.

16.  The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of this order.

17.       Parties to appear before the State Commission on 17.09.2014.

18.       Dasti.