1. The Union of India Department of Posts, Rep. by its Director General New Delhi – 110001
2. Indian Posts Department Through Superintendent of Post Offices, Postal Division, Sikar
3. Sub Post Master, Head Post Office Sikar Road, Laxmangarh, District-Sikar.
…Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP)
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Trilok Chand R/o Village Manasi,Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar
2. Deputy Conservation of Forest IGNP, Stage II,Division- 1,Bikaner
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate with Mr. Arjun Mali, Advocate
For the Res. Nos.1&2: Ex-parte
PRONOUNCED ON 24th July, 2014
O R D E R
PERJUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.06.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 286 of 2012 – Indian Posts Department & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent in pursuance to advertisement for Senior Chief Forest Conservator submitted complete application form on 13.11.2010 to OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.34/- as Speed Post Charges for delivery to OP No. 3/Respondent No.2, which was to reach to the Office of OP No. 3 before 16.11.2010, but envelope was returned back on 26.11.2010 without any reason for non-delivery and complainant could not appear in the examination for the post of Forest Conservator. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP Nos. 1 & 2/petitioners resisted complaint and submitted that as OP No. 3 refused to accept the envelope, it was returned back to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by leaned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. None appeared for respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex-parte.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay of 121 days has occurred in filing revision petition, as permission was received by Divisional Office on 29.11.2012 and after that Ministry of Law and Justice was contacted and Counsel was appointed; hence, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. Apparently, there is delay of 121 days in filing revision petition and no date-wise explanation has been given, but as impugned order is not a speaking order, I deem it appropriate to condone delay subject to cost. Consequently, application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of depositing Rs.5,000/- as cost with the Legal Aid Account of State Commission.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to State Commission.
7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has neither discussed facts of the case, nor contentions of the appellant raised in memo of appeal whereas learned State Commission ought to have discussed all the facts and legal issues raised by the parties.
8. 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’.
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”.
9. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the facts 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 petitioner.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 4.06.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No. 286 of 2012 – Indian Posts Department & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. 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.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 2.9.2014. A copy of this order may be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.