UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs RAJ KUMAR

THE petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by State Commission Rajasthan whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the District Forum has preferred this revision.

MR . M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non -speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellant in the appeal have not been addressed to. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits.

MR . Ankit Acharya, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: "The subordinate District Forum has passed the award after detailed anaylsis of the facts and evidences. Hence, we do not find any expediency in analysis of the facts and evidences of the case again. Looking to the facts and evidences we do not find any infirmity in the order dt. 15.05.2013 passed by learned District Forum Nagaur in complaint No. 87/2011 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. Hence on merit there is no point in the appeal. 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 do 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 the 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 dt. 15.05.2013 passed by District Forum nagaur in complaint no.87/2011 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. If the appellant has deposited any amount in District Forum, he will be free to receive it back. The appellant is given time of one month for compliance of the order of District Forum."

ON reading of the aforesaid 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 it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order is non -speaking order as such not sustainable. Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir, 2004 10 SCC 86wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission, Haryana with the 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." 6. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity being non -speaking order and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The 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 referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.03.2015. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the appearance of the parties before there.