PURA RAM DHAKA Vs HEAD MASTER, PRADHAN POST OFFICE & 2 ORS

Heard.

Petitioner/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against Respondent/Opposite Party alleging deficiency on its part.

Respondent contested the same by filing its written statement.

After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu (for short ''District Forum'') vide order dated 18.12.2013, partly allowed the complaint.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed (Appeal No229 of 2014) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan,(for short, ''State Commission'') which vide its impugned order dated 23.4.2014, dismissed the appeal.

Hence, present revision.

The impugned order passed by State Commission is reproduced as under ; "This appeal is presented by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 18.12.2013 of the District Forum, Churu.

The counsel of the appellant was heard in detail and perused record. The subordinate Forum had passed the order after the careful and detailed perusal of all the available records. Hence we do not find any need to again analyse the complete facts and evidences of the complaint and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any irregularity in the order dated 18.12.2013 of the complaint no.23/2012 passed by the Learned District Forum, Churu. As after the correct analysis from the facts and circumstances available on the records, the District Forum rationally had given the appropriate reliefs to the complainant, which requires no interference and also there is no merit in the appeal.

Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act was enacted for the speedy and efficacious remedy of the disputes of the consumers. The consumers expect speedy justice, hence in the Act of 1986 the general judicial procedure are not included. The District Forum and the Commissions had to adjudicate the complaints and the appeal according to the principles of the natural jusice. If the Commission did not find any irregularity in the finding based on the evidences and the available documents on record and the reliefs given after correct analyses by the District Forum then according to the intentions of the Act of 1986 there arise no need to reconsider and reanalyze of all the facts and evidences. According to the real intention of the Section 3 of the Act of 1986 also it is clear that for the saving of the time the provisions of this Act shall be in addition of any Act and not in derogation of any other Acts. Hence the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Churu in the complaint no.23/2012 is upheld and the appeal of the appellant is dismissd on merits."

After going through the order, we are shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. It has not mentioned even the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any of the submissions made by the petitioner''s counsel. It appears that State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeals. For knowledge of the State Commission, we hereby quote the law as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India with regard to disposal of first appeal.

In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held ; " 4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows; 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 HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details 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 appellant 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 ".

Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s)8811/2009 , decided on 21.2.2011, Hon''ble Apex Court observed ; " A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons ".

Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind.

Hence, we hereby set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition. Consequently, we remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with mandate of law as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court.

The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of this order.

To appear before the State Commission on 6.7.2015

Dasti