Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Though dasti notice was served on respondent 1, no one is present on behalf of any of the respondents. However, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the bus in question was sold to the complainant/respondent 1 on 24th July 2006. According to the case made out by the complainant, the institution approached the District Transport Officer for registration on 20th July 2007, i.e., over a year after the said purchase. Further, it was only in 29th June 2009 that the District/Regional Transport Officer informed the respondent about outstanding Motor Vehicle Tax dues of Rs. 54,868/-. The complaint was filed in September 2009, which was well over 2 years after the sale of the bus in question. In view of this sequence of events, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it could hardly be a case for paying to the respondent the amount of compensation as has been awarded by the District Forum. 4. Unfortunately, however, the State Commission has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner by an absolutely inadequate order, without discussing even the facts of the case. For the sake of record, we would like to reproduce the order: - “Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. File perused. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. The Appeal of the Appellant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, confirming the order dated 26.05.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 278/2009 by District Forum, Karauli, the Appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. The amount deposited by the Appellant with accrued interest be adjusted towards the amount payable to the Respondent. To comply the remaining order, the Appellant is granted one month time from today.” 5. It is settled law that an appeal is deemed to be a continuation of the process of adjudication of a complaint and, therefore, needs to be dealt with in an adequate manner on points of fact as well as law. This has certainly not been done by the State Commission. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance of law. The parties may appear before the State Commission on 29.05.2012. 7. During the pendency of the remanded proceedings, operation of the order of the District Forum shall remain stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 55,000/- with the District Forum, within 4 weeks. ……………………………… (ANUPAM DASGUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER …………………………….. (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Later, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent 1 and he was apprised of the order. | 
