PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 13/2013 – Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Singh by which, appeal was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent’s vehicle insured by OP/petitioner was stolen on 16.12.2008 during subsistence of insurance policy. FIR was lodged and intimation was given to Insurance Co., but claim was not accepted by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that on account of delay in lodging FIR and delay in intimation to Insurance Co., claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay 75% of the sum assured on non-standard basis with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3500/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1500/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. As far application for condonation of delay is concerned, as per office report there is delay of 68 days, but as per application for condonation of delay, there is delay of 60 days in filing revision petition on the ground that file was misplaced in the office of Advocate; so, revision petition could not be filed in time. File was traced on 10.1.2014 and later on revision petition was prepared and filed on 31.1.2014; so, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. As impugned order is non-speaking order, delay occurred due to misplacement of file in the office of Advocate, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in – (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned and delay stands condoned subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to respondent within 4 weeks. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. 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”. 7. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects 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 parties. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 26.8.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 13/2013 – Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Singh 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. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 31.5.2016. | 
