This revision petition is directed against order rendered by the State Commission in appeal no. 283 / 2010 confirming the order of the District Forum. The respondent is original complainant. He had filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation on account of loss caused due to him due to deficiency in service provided by the petitioner in regard to the electricity connection no. 1808-0325. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the contentions of the parties. It suffices to state that the case of the respondent was that the electricity meter was burnt in the middle of December 2008 on account of high voltage supplied through the electricity meter supplied to the revision petitioner. It was further alleged that the electricity supply was stopped due to such a reason and the family of the respondent was required to suffer great financial difficulty. The petitioner had sent a bill for Rs.31,262/- in the month of June 2009 though the electricity meter had burnt away. On assumption that there was high jumped reading in relation to the said burnt out meter, the meter was not changed and the deficiency in the supply of electricity was also not cured. The bill sent by the petitioner was, therefore, excessive, incorrect and improper. 3. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was given 10 HP electricity connection but was using the electricity for the purpose of running an atta chakki (flour mill) and expeller of 15 HP load besides 15 HP submersible motor for the purpose of irrigation. The petitioner categorically stated that the respondent was found using a load of 30 HP though the sanctioned load was only of 10 HP. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent had committed theft of electricity and as such his failure to pay the bill was improper. 4. The District Consumer Forum held that the respondent was put to loss due to the burning of the electricity meter. The claim for compensation was partly allowed and the electricity bill issued on the maximum consumption basis was held to be incorrect. The State Commission subscribed to the findings of the District Forum. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. 6. Perusal of the impugned order of the Sate Commission reveals that the reasons for confirming the findings of the District Forum are not spelt out as required under the law. The impugned order appears to be non-speaking order. The State Commission did not consider the rival contentions and failed to locate whether the meter supplied to the respondent had burnt away. There appears no discussion on the issue whether the respondent was using excessive load of 30 HP instead of 10HP nor any attempt seems to have been made to examine the issue pertaining to alleged theft of electricity by the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the vigilance inspection report and the relevant remarks of the meter reader, which appears in the report of the vigilance (Annexure P-6). It was found during that inspection that the respondent had unauthorisedly used three phase electricity by connecting three copper wires from the LT box installed in the rear of the transformer and that there was theft of electricity. 7. This Commission in shwar Singh Vs. Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. [II (2011) CPJ 18 (NC)]has observed that in case of theft of electricity, the consumer fora has no jurisdiction to go into such issues and as such the complaint was not found maintainable. It is, therefore, necessary to locate whether there was a theft of electricity and that the consumer fora had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This aspect is not at all considered by the State Commission. We find that the impugned order is cryptic and bereft of reasons. Consequently it cannot be treated as judgement in the eye of law. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the State Commission with direction to duly consider all the aspects and to give fresh finding on the basis of the material placed on record with a reasoned order as also to consider the question regarding the maintainability of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the issue of jurisdiction involved. The parties be called upon to appear before the State Commission on 6.06.2011. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner.