JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite of service of dasti notice even on the second call.  On perusal of the affidavit of service of dasti notice filed by the petitioner as also the annexed service report, we are satisfied that the respondent has been duly served with the notice.  Since no one has turned up on behalf of the respondent, he is proceeded ex parte.

2.         The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by State Commission Rajasthan whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the District Forum, has preferred this revision.

3.         Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non-speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellant in the appeal have not been addressed to.  Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits.

4.         We have considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus:

“The lower District Forum has passed the order going through to all the facts and evidences in detail.  So, we are not inclined to re peruse all the facts and evidences again.  We do not find any mistake by looking to the facts and circumstances passed in order dated 29.07.2013 by learned District Forum, Sikar in complaint no. A-516/2012. Because District Forum has applied his mind and available documents facts on record are seen and only than order has been passed and the proper relief to the complaint is granted and as such, we do not find any interference.  As well as, there is no any merit in the appeal.

Otherwise also the purpose of consumer protection Act to provide simple and speedy justice.  Consumer expect speedy justice in its complaint.  That is to why, Act of 1986 is kept a far to general judicial process.  District Forum and Commission are bound to grant speedy disposal in accordance with principle of natural justice in complaint and appeal.  If Commission do not find any mistake in the order passed by the District Forum on the basis of facts and documents available on records than there is no any requirement to re-analysis of all facts and evidences.  As per Act Section 3 of the Act 1986 the main theme is that to implementation of this Act, its provision would be additional and not beyond or interfere in any another law.

So, order dated 29.07.2013 passed in complaint no.A-516/2012 by District Forum, Sikar is affirmed and appeal of appellant is dismissed on merit.  The appellants would be at liberty if they have deposited fees before the District Forum to take it back. The appellants are given one month time to comply the order.”

5.         On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither referred to the facts of the case nor it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal.  Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order as such not sustainable.  Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission, Haryana with the following observations:

“5.           The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal.  That order was confirmed by the National Commission.  Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties.

6.            The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.  There will be no order as to costs.”

6.         In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity being non-speaking order and cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30.01.2015. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of appearance of the parties before there.