For Respondent No.1          :          Mr.Deepak Sahni, Advocate

For Respondent No.2          :          NEMO

          Petitioner/ complainant had purchased a Laptop from Respondent No.1 on 27.6.2007.  According to the petitioner, the laptop developed certain defects within warranty period of one year.  It was alleged that Respondent No.1 had misguided the petitioner to create an I.D. Number through AMC for which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.4,950/-, which amount the petitioner deposited with Respondent No.2 and sent the laptop to the Respondent No.2 for repairs.  The laptop was not returned to the petitioner by Respondent No.2.  Hence, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint ex parte against Respondent No.2 and dismissed the same against Respondent No.1, aggrieved by which Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum by passing a non-speaking order. 

          Limited Notice was issued on 10.9.2009 to the respondent as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after dealing with each of the points on facts as well as law and giving reasons in support thereof.  

          We have gone through the order passed by the State Commission.  The order passed by the State Commission is cryptic and non-speaking.  The State Commission is the first Court of Appeal and the first Court of Appeal has to deal with all the findings recorded by the District Forum on facts as well as on law and the points raised in the Memo of Appeal, which has not been done.  In the circumstances, order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the case is ordered to be remitted back to the State Commission for passing appropriate order in accordance with law.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.12.2009.