AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the respondent has given his vakalatanama to the Court Master which is taken on record.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his appeal was dismissed in default as well as on merit by the State Commission vide order dated 25.06.2018, whereas, the State Commission has not examined the issues raised in the appeal and had only stated that on perusal, they are satisfied that the appeal does not have any merit. This is clearly a non-speaking order and cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that though the petitioner has filed the written statement before the District Forum, however, they have not appeared after that before the District Forum. Similar thing has also happened during the appellate stage. When the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not represented by either the party or by the Counsel and therefore, the State Commission had no option but to pass the dismissal order. The State Commission has recorded that the respondent is present in person and after hearing the respondent, the State Commission passed the order that the case does not have any merit. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is a non-speaking order.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. From a perusal of the record of the State Commission, it is clear that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution as none was present on behalf of the petitioner/ appellant before the State Commission and secondly, it has been dismissed on merit also. While dismissing the appeal on merit, the State Commission has not given any reasons or basis for giving this finding. The State Commission has not examined the issues raised in the appeal. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Commission is required to consider all the points raised in the appeal and then pass a speaking order on all the points. In the case of Terex Vectra Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Meharchand & Ors., in RP No.3736 of 2012, decided on 09.04.2013 (NC). It has been held that:
"Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496" held that the judicial and quasijudicial courts/authorities are required to pass speaking orders."
Clearly, the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the State Commission does not meet this criteria. Accordingly, this is a non-speaking order. As none was present on behalf of the petitioner on the date when the impugned order was passed by the State Commission and the order is not a speaking order, the appeal needs to be restored and decided by the State Commission on merit.
Based on the above discussions, the order dated 25.06.2018 of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner on merit, after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard. This order is passed at a cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/ complainant by way of demand draft by the petitioner before the State Commission.
Parties to appear before the State Commission on 30th October 2019.