HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD vs Manoj Mahatma

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, "the State Commission") dated 1.8.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/opposite party.

MR . Kapil Kher, Advocate, 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.

THE respondent No.1 who is the complainant has fairly conceded that the impugned order is non -speaking order and cannot be sustained and requested that the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits with a reasoned order instead of wasting time on affecting service of notice on respondent No.2. I have considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: "The arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties were heard at length and pleadings were perused. The District Forum has considered the entire facts of the complaint and merits of the case in detail while passing the said order. Therefore, we do not find any logic or rationale in re -assessing the entire facts of the case complaint and merits of the matter again. Seeing and considering the facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Bikaner in complaint No.255/2002 dated 24.12.2005. Since on the basis of the facts on record as presented in the pleadings, the District Forum has exercised apt judicial discretion in granting the justified relief to the complainant; no scope for interference in the same arises or is required.

Even otherwise, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has been formed to solve consumer''s disputes in a speedy manner and to grant convenient redress of the grievances. A consumer, on instituting a complaint, hopes for a speedy justice in respect of his grievance. This is why the 1986 Act has kept the usual Code of Civil Procedure separate from the purview of the Consumer Protection Law. The District Forum as well as Commission has to adjudicate upon complaint and appeal in accordance with natural and fundamental principles of justice so as to expedite the matters and effectuate speedy redress of grievance. However, if the State Commission does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District forum who has passed the same after due consideration of the facts as well as the documents filed in the complaint and while having exercised sound judicial discretion in doing so, then there is no purpose solved in going against the spirit of the Act of 1986 and unnecessarily reassessing or reviewing the entire facts and merits of the case. The chief intention of the 1986 Act as provided by Section 3, is also that, for the purpose of achieving speedy mechanism, the provisions of this Act are to be construed as additional to, and not in derogation of, the order of the Acts in force.

Hence, order dated 24.12.2005, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner is being re -affirmed and the appellant''s appeal is being dismissed on merits. If the appellant has deposited any amount before the District Forum in respect of the instant appeal, it is given liberty to withdraw the said amount, if it so desires. The appellant is given a month''s time to comply with the directions in the order passed by the district Forum."

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.

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

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 to appear before the State Commission on 28.4.2015.