BAID MOTORS PVT LTD vs BANWARI LAL PUNIA

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1160 of 2012 Baid Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Banwari Lal Punia by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent booked a Taveera B-2 with OP/petitioner for a total cost of Rs.7,06,087/- including accessories, Logistic, Insurance and registration charges. It was further submitted that if booking was done upto 8.2.2011, a special discount of Rs.8,000/- was to be given and complainant was required to pay Rs.6,98,100/-. Complainant deposited Rs.5100/- on 8.12.2011, Rs.45,000/- on 11.2.2011, Rs.1,25,000/- on 18.2.2011 and Rs.73,000/- on 28.2.2011 and balance Rs.4,50,000/- were paid through financer. Delivery of vehicle was to be given on 1.3.2011 and at that time OP demanded Rs.50,000/- more which was improper demand. It was further submitted that on 17.3.2011 vehicle was delivered but discount was not given and on account of delay in delivery he suffered loss of Rs. 32,000/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP was proceeded ex-parte before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.8,000/- being special discount and Rs.32,000/- for compensation, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

[3] None appeared for respondent even after service of notice.

[4] Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

[5] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is not speaking order; hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order.

[6] Hon''ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, 2001 10 SCC 659 observed as under: "1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

[7] In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and contentions raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any contentions and arguments of the appellant raised in memo of appeal, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal of appeal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties.

[8] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 9.9.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1160 of 2012 Baid Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Banwari Lal Punia is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

[9] Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 15.10.2015.