RAJESH GUPTA vs MOHAN LAL GUPTA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1856 of 2011 - Dr. Rajesh Gupta (Dentist) Vs. Mohan Lal Gupta by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by learned District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of petitioner/OP in making artificial denture and charging Rs.3500/- for the aforesaid work and prayed for direction to the OP to refund Rs.3500/- charged for artificial denture, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2100/- towards litigation expenses. OP contested the complaint and denied any deficiency in making artificial denture and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed petitioner/OP to pay Rs.3500/- as cost of artificial denture, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has not dealt with the arguments submitted by the petitioner; hence, petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that District Forum has elaborately discussed submissions of the parties and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has observed as under: "Looking to the facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by learned District Forum, Dausa in Complaint No.128/2010. Since the learned District Forum has properly applied its mind on the facts and material available on record of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order. Besides, on merits also we do not find any substance in the appeal ".

Hon ''ble Apex Courtin (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 ''. 2. 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 arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with 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.

IT was suggested to learned Counsel for the parties to get the matter resolved out of Court as it involves meagre amount, but learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is likely to be resolved out of Court after the case is remanded to the learned State Commission. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned 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 25.4.2013. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.