PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 537 of 2012 – Country Club (India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Tarun Rawat, by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent under the Mr. Millionaire Club Parivar Membership Scheme paid
Rs. 35,000/- and sought confirmation for tour to Goa. Opposite party-petitioner did not confirm booking inspite of repeated requests. As tour was not confirmed, complainant family could not visit Goa and his reputation suffered. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party-complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party did not file written statement before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned State Commission is not a speaking order and does not contain any reason for dismissal of application for condonation of delay as well appeal hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Order passed by the learned State Commission runs as under: “The appellant has filed this appeal with delay of 117 days. The grounds and explanations given in the application do not appear to be justified and proper. Hence, in the interest of justice, it does not appear to be appropriate to condone the delay. The subordinate Distt. Forum has passed order after examining all the facts of complaint and evidence in detail. Therefore, we do not find any justifications to re-examine all the facts of complaint and evidence. In view of facts and circumstances, we do not find any lapses/error in the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the ld. Distt. Forum, camp at Jaipur, Jaipur in complaint no. 1154/2011 (2nd, 215/2007). As the Distt. Forum has applied correct judicious mind on the facts brought out on record, there is no ground of any interference therein, whatsoever. In addition, the appeal appears to be without any substance on merit also”. 6. Perusal of order clearly reveals that no reason has been assigned in the order for rejection of application for condonation of delay as well appeal. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: “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. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 10 SCC 243 H.K.N. Swami Vs. Irshad Basith observed in para-3 as under: “The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title. The order of the High Court is cryptic and the same is without assigning any reason”. 8. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, it becomes clear that it was obligatory on the part of the State Commission to pass speaking order with reasons while disposing appeal. In the present case, impugned order does not contain any reason for dismissal of application for condonation of delay as well appeal and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the State Commission. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in appeal No. 537 of 2012 – Country Club (India) Limited & Anr. Vs. Tarun Rawat, is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to dispose of appeal by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.12.2013. | 
