REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs Lucin Jyoti Kumar

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, aipur (in short, "the State Commission") dated 14th December, 2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

THE revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 19 days. Petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. In view of the reasons given in the application, delay in filing of revision petition is condoned.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the State Commission on the ground that it is a non -speaking order. It is contended that the order of the State Commission is without jurisdiction because State Commission has failed to discharge its duty as an appellate Court in re -appreciating the facts and deciding the appeal after referring to the ground taken in the memorandum of appeal. Learned Shri Chinmay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of revision petition.

WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. On reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither referred to the facts of the case nor the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given cogent reason for rejection of appeal. On the contrary State Commission has observed "we do not find any reason to reexamine all the facts and evidence." It is well settled that the first appellate Court is a Court of fact and it is the obligation of the first appellate Court to re -appreciate the facts in the context of the grounds of appeal. The State Commission by declining to appreciate the evidence has abdicated its function and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable.

IN the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir, 2004 10 SCC 86 Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of similar order passed by the State Commission, Haryana set aside the order with following observations: - "5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21 -7 -2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21 -7 -2000 after giving notice to the parties.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

In view of the above stated position in law and the fact that the State Commission has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it as an appellate Court, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order.

PARTIES to appear before the State Commission on 12.5.2015.