Heard. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, that impugned order passed by the State Commission while deciding the petitioner appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal. 3. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct against the Petitioner alleging deficiency on its part, as respondent insurance claim was wrongly rejected. 4. Respondent contested the same by filing its written statement. 5. After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (for short istrict Forum vide order dated 28.2.2011, partly allowed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Appeal (No.745 of 2011) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan,(for short, tate Commission which vide its impugned order dated 26.8.2011, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 7. Hence, the present revision. 8. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as under; d. Advocate of the appellant was heard at the stage of notice. Court file is perused. On perusing all the facts and circumstances of the case it is found that there is no error in the order passed by Ld. District Forum, Serohi in complaint number 46/2010 dated 28.2.2011. Order of the District Forum is based upon the documentary facts in which there is no need for any interference. Appeal of the appellant is found to be baseless. Therefore while affirming the order dated28.2.2011 passed in complaint number 47/2010 by District Forum serohi, appeal of the appellant is rejected. The profit earned in the amount deposited before District Forum by the appellant is to be included in the amount to be paid to the complainant. For compliance of rest of the order appellant is granted one month time from today. 9. 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 either of the parties. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeals. 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. 10. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Honle 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 : e 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 11. 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". 12. Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Honle Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind. 13. 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. 14. 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. To appear before the State Commission on 21.08.2014. 15. Dasti.