Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors. vs Brijmohan Sharma And Ors.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.1.2014 in Appeal No. 2268 of 2010 - Rajasthan Housing Board v. Brijmohan Sharma passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 3, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent was allotted shop by OP/petitioner on 22.1.2007 in auction and complainant deposited Rs. 1,48,500/ - being 25% on 13.2.2007 and Rs. 2,23,000/ - were deposited on 14.2.2007, but possession was not handed over to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP inspite of being given opportunity did not file written statement and he was proceeded ex -parte. Learned District forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP to handover possession of shop and further directed to pay Rs. 7,000/ - as cost. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the partiers finally at admission stage and perused record.

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. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as OP did not file written statement before District Forum, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

ORDER passed by learned State Commission runs as under: "The Dist. Forum has passed appropriate order by giving detailed description, in which there is no ground for interference. A sum of Rs. 3,71,500/ - of the complainant is deposited in the Board. Not handing over the possession of shop and ownership related documents by the opp. Party is certainly a serious defect in service. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed on a cost of Rs. 10,000/ -."

Hon''ble Apex Court in : (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL v. 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 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.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 27.1.2014 in Appeal No. 2268 of 2010 - Rajasthan Housing Board v. Brijmohan Sharma passed by the State Commission 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 12.10.2015.