The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by State Commission Rajasthan whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the District Forum has preferred this revision.

2.         Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non-speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellant in the appeal have not been addressed to.  Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits.

3.         Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum.  Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition.

4.         We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.  In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus:

“ Subordinate Forum has passed the order after investigating facts and evidence of the case thoroughly.  Therefore, we do not find any justification for re-investigation of the facts and evidences of the case.  In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum Jaipur – II, Jaipur in complaint no. 563/2012.  Because the District Forum has granted appropriate relief to the complainant will full  intelligence on the facts came on record, no base becomes to interfere in the same.  In this manner, there is no substance known on the merits, de-merits in the appeal.

   Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act is made for the early and easy disposal of the consumer disputes.  The consumer expects early justice on his complaint, hence the normal judicial proceedings keeps away in Act, 1986.  District Forum and Commission have to dispose of the complaint and appeal quickly according to natural justice principles.  If Commission does not find any error in the relief granted by the District Forum with right intelligence on the basis of file and available documents, then in analogue to spirit of Act, 1986 there remains no need to re-analyze the facts and evidence.  According to section 3, the original spirit of the Act is also that the provisions of this Act are implemented for time in addition to the provisions of any other law and not in the deficiency.

   Therefore, the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by District Forum, Jaipur –II, Jaipur in complaint no. 563/2012 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits.”.

5.         On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither referred to the facts of the case nor it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal.  Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order as such not sustainable.  Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission, Haryana with the following observations:

“5.           The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal.  That order was confirmed by the National Commission.  Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties.

6.            The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.  There will be no order as to costs.”

6.         In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity being non-speaking order and cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 19.12.2013. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within three months from the appearance of the parties before there.