SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M. Jagannadha Rao and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5169 of 2000. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9979 of 2000) D/d. 18.9.2000.

HVPNL - Appellant

Versus

Mahavir - Respondent

Consumer Protection act, 1986, Section 18 - Appeal - Unreasoned order - Duty of appellate forum - Disposal of cases by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in a routine fashion by passing a set order without giving any reasons - Appellate forum to dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons - Matter remanded for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

[Para 4]

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - Leave granted.

2. Mr Hemant Sharma, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Heard counsel on both sides.

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 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.?

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.

Issue notice for remand of the matter to the State Commission, for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties."

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.

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

Appeal allowed.