KAMAL & CO. vs HIMANSHU SHARMA & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 966 of 2012 - Kamal & Company Vs. Himanshu Sharma & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 booked TATA Safari Car with OP No. 1/Petitioner after depositing Rs.50,000/-. Rupees 2,50,000/- were deposited after one month and delivery of car was taken and it was got insured. It was further submitted that OP No. 2/Respondent No.2 assured to sanction loan, but later on refused to sanction loan on the pretext that complainant was below 21 years of age. Later on, complainant provided cheques of his mother and OP No. 2 assured loan facility and intimated complainant that loan has been sanctioned which is to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.16,557/-. It was further submitted that in May, 2008, vehicle was forcibly possessed by OP on the ground that loan was not sanctioned. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OPs resisted complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to refund Rs.3,28,000/- with 18% interest and OPs were further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as charged process fee, Rs.5,000/- for frequent visits and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint. Appeal filed by OP No.1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and has not considered grounds taken in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that as learned District forum had already discussed all aspects, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Hon''ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL Vs. Mahavir 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".

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 arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 966 of 2012 - Kamal & Company Vs. Himanshu Sharma & Anr. 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.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 26.05.2015.