UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs RASID KHAN & ANR.

A sum of Rs.7,500/- being traveling and allied expenses in terms of order dated 17.10.2014 passed by this Commission has been handed over to respondent no.1 by counsel for petitioner.

Heard.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, that impugned order dated 01.08.2014, passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan while deciding the petitioner''s appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal.

Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against the petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 in not allowing his Insurance Claim, lodged on account of theft of his Tractor.

Petitioner contested the same by filing its written statement.

After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sawai Madhopur (for short ''District Forum'') vide order dated 03.06.2011, allowed the complaint

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed First Appeal No.1352 of 2011 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (for short, ''State Commission'') which vide order dated 29.01.2013, dismissed the same.

This Commission, vide order dated 13.05.2014, accepted the Revision Petition No.2341 of 2013 filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the State Commission, to decide the appeal afresh by a reasoned order.

However, the State Commission vide impugned order dated 01.08.2014, again dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner and did not give any reasons.

Hence, the present revision.

The impugned order dated 01.08.2014 read as under: "The appellant head again as per the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Hon''ble National Commission. No one appeared on behalf of respondents. File perused thoroughly. The present appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum Sawai Madhopur dated 03.06.2011. The subordinate District Forum has passed the award after detailed analysis of the facts and evidence. Hence we do not find any expediency in analysis of the facts and evidence of the case again. Looking to the facts and evidences we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. District Forum

Sawai Madhopur in complaint no.86/2009. As the District Forum has given reasonable relief to the complainant on the basis of facts came on record and there is no any basis of interference. Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act has been made for immediate and easy disposal of the consumer complaints. The consumer expects immediate and easy disposal of his complaint. Hence the general legal proceedings has kept away in Act. 1986. The District Forum and the commission has to dispose off the complaints immediately as per principles of natural justice. If the Commission does not find any infirmity in the findings and relief given by the District Forum in their order then as per motive of Act 1986 there is no need to again discuss and analyze all the facts and evidences. The main motive of Act 1986 as per section 3 is also that for time implementation the sub sections of this act will be in addition to sections of any other law and not in deficiency. Hence the order dated 03.06.2009 passed by District Forum Sawai Madhopur is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. If the appellant has deposited any amount in District Forum Swai Mahdopur, he will be free to receive it back. The appellant is given time for one month for compliance3 of the order of District Forum."

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 either of the parties. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeal. For the 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 petitioners. 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.

Parties to appear before the State Commission on 27.05.2015.

Dasti to both parties.