Prabhu Dayal Sharma vs Director (Crs) State Insurance And Provident Fund Department Jaipur

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1341 of 2005 - Prabhu Dayal Sharma Vs. Director (CRS) State Insurance & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum and prayed that OP/respondent may be directed to give provident fund amount along with interest and State Insurance amount along with interest and further allow Rs.400/ - which were deducted by State Insurance and Rs.25,000/ - may be awarded for mental agony and cost of complaint. OP resisted complaint and submitted that delay occurred in payment of provident fund amount as indemnity bond was not submitted and further submitted that insurance amount along with interest has already been paid. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has passed speaking order and discussed every aspect; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that neither any fact mentioned in the complaint, nor any ground mentioned in memo of appeal have been mentioned in the impugned order and no cogent reasons have been assigned for dismissing appeal. In this impugned order only it has been mentioned that delay in making payment of provident fund occurred due to not submitting indemnity bond in time and further observed that State Insurance amount along with interest has already been paid.

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 facts 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 petitioner.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur Bench (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1341 of 2005 - Prabhu Dayal Sharma Vs. Director (CRS) State Insurance & Ors.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

A copy of this order may be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.