No one appears for the respondent even on the second call. Respondent, is, therefore, ex parte. 2. This revision is directed against against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kerela ( in short, the State Commission) dated 29.09.2012, which is reproduced thus: ounsel for the appellant present. Respondent present in person. Heard. We find no ground to admit the appeal. Further the Forum has awarded only a compensation of Rs.3000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/- only. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in the admission stage itself. 3. Mr. Sidharth Jha, counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable in law for the reason that it is a non speaking order devoid of reasons for dismissal of the appeal on admission stage. There is a merit in the submission. On perusal of the order, it is seen that State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner in limine without even referring to facts of the case and the grounds taken in the plea. The order is cryptic non speaking order which cannot be sustained. Revision petition is accepted and impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after giving due notice to the opposite party. Petitioner to appear before the State Commission on 03.12.2013.