IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Court while deciding appeal is required to deal with all facts and arguments raised by appellant.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—These revision petitions arise out of the identical order of learned State Commission involving same facts; hence, decided by common order.

2. Revision Petition No. 3542 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 275 of 2013 – United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi and Revision Petition No. 3543 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 281 of 2013 – United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi by which, while dismissing appeals, orders of District Forum allowing complaints were upheld.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s/respondent’s husband Ramji Lal purchased vehicle No. RJ36-U-0061 on 22.11.2006 and on the same day vehicle was registered in his name. On 24.11.2006, husband of complainant submitted application with OP/petitioner for transfer of insurance policy in his name. On 16.6.2007, husband of complainant died in road accident on account of which, purchased vehicle was damaged. OP had also covered risk of personal accident for Rs.2,00,000/- by charging premium of Rs.100/-. OP has not transferred insurance of vehicle in her husband’s name. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed two separate complaints before District Forum pertaining to loss of vehicle and personal accident coverage. OP resisted complaints and submitted that policy was in the name of Mukesh Kumar who was not related to the complainant and as complainant’s husband could not get the policy transferred in his name, OP has not committed any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaints and directed complainants to submit claim after completing all the formalities required by Insurance Company and OP was directed to transfer the policy in the name of complainant within one month and settle the claim and was awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation. Appeals filed by OP were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned orders against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 36 days.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 36 days occurred in obtaining legal opinion from panel advocates and necessary official approval from different offices which may be condoned. I deem it appropriate to condone the delay for reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing revision petitions and 36 days delay stands condoned.

6. 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.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that as only direction has been given to the petitioner to transfer the insurance policy and settle the claim; even if, impugned order is not a speaking order, revision petition be dismissed.

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2001) 10 SCC 659, 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 impug