RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs VINAY KUMAR GOYAL

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1443/2011- Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vinay Kumar Goyal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant / Respondent deposited 2,000/- on 21.08.1989 with OP/petitioner for registration of house in lower income group at Jaipur. He was allotted registration number. Later on, he filed application for modification of income group and as per requirement of OP, complainant submitted has consent with income certificate, but his request remained unattended for long period. OP without complainant''s consent changed registration for Sanganer from Jaipur. Complainant deposited 40,000/- in self-financing scheme on 7.3.2005, but his name was not included in lottery draw and this amount was returned to him without assigning any reason. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that allotment letter no. 8681 dated 24.12.1993 was

issued and as per allotment letter, complainant failed to pay instalments. OP issued another letter no. 473 dated 16.12.1999 and asked for depositing money, but money was not deposited. Complainant filed income certificate of his father in place of his own income certificate. It was further submitted that Sanganer also falls within Jaipur and as complainant''s name was not found in draw of lottery his money was returned and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to treat complainant''s seniority from March, 2005 in the category of MIG B and directed to give house in Mansarovar Scheme along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the claim. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

None appeared for respondent even after service of notice.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not 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.

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 10.07.2012 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 1443/2011- Rajasthan Hsg. Bd. Vs. Vinay Kumar Goyal 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.

Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 28.5.2015.