Petitioner who was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum, floated a Scheme by the name ‘Holiday Accommodation Scheme/Holiday Time Share Scheme’, for giving one week’s accommodation to the members of the Scheme for 33 years. 4 Complainants/respondents became members of the said Scheme and paid different amounts through opposite party No. 2, who was the agent of the petitioner. An agreement was executed between the parties on 07.11.2002. A complimentary trip was offered to the respondents, however, no date of such trip was fixed by the petitioners. On repeated enquiries, 2nd opposite party informed the respondents that the 1st opposite party was no longer associated with them and that they should directly contact the petitioner. The complainants thereafter approached the petitioner who did not respond. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed complaints before the District Forum alleging that despite depositing different amounts, as required for the complimentary trip, no date of such trip was fixed by the petitioner. Opposite party No. 2 did not appear in spite of service and was proceeded ex-parte. Petitioner put in appearance and resisted the complaint. In the written statement it was averred by the petitioner that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That the complainants were not consumers. That the petitioner was not 5 bound to refund the monies to the complainants as they had not paid the entire amount. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the amounts deposited by the respondents along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioner being aggrieved, filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission, without recording the contentions raised by the petitioner, disposed of the appeals by observing as follows :- “It is not in dispute that the complainants have paid certain amounts to OP-2,which is the agent of OP-1, and became members to avail the benefit of ‘Holiday Accommodation Scheme/Holiday Time Share Scheme’ floated by OP-1. We are told that OP-2 has closed its office and its whereabouts are not known. OP-1 also has not filed any version before the District Forum disputing or denying the averments made by the complainants in the complaints. When OP-1 has received the amount through OP-2 agreeing to offer certain benefits under the scheme and if the benefits are not provided, necessarily the amount paid by the complainants is to be refunded. The District Forum having recorded the finding that the Ops have not provided the facilities even though they have received the amounts, is right in ordering OP-1 to refund the amount paid by the complainants. Therefore, in our view, the impugned orders in these appeals do not call for any interference”. 6 From a perusal of the order, it is evident that the State Commission has proceeded as if the petitioner did not file the written statement and did not contest the complaint. State Commission has also not recorded any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The State Commission has not even recorded the contentions raised by the respective counsel for the parties. The State Commission being the final court of facts was required to pass a reasoned order, after recording the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. The order of the State Commission being ‘non-speaking’, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Apart from this, the order of the State Commission is factually incorrect. The State Commission has proceeded as if the petitioner had not filed the written statement. This finding is contrary to the facts present on record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the first set of revision petition Nos. 1348 to 1355 of 2007 fairly concedes that the petitioner had filed the written statement and the State Commission has wrongly held that the petitioner had not filed the written statement. In the other set of revision petition Nos. 2750 to 2754 of 2007 and also in revision petition No. 3676 of 2008, the State Commission has not recorded the fact that the petitioner had not filed the written statement. Order is otherwise non-speaking. 7 Since the order passed by the State Commission is based on incorrect facts and also because it is cryptic and non-speaking, the same is set aside and the cases are remanded back to the State Commission, to decide them afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to all the respondents. Some of the respondents in spite of notices sent to them, have not appeared. The State Commission would ensure that the respondents, who were not represented before us, are duly served, before disposing of the appeals. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30.01.2012. Since these are old cases, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within four months from the date of service on respondents who are not represented before. In view of the foregoing reasons, all these revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. | 
