K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1419/2012 – Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Jaidayal Sharma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent filed application on 24.1.1980 for allotment of MIG-B category house in General Registration Scheme 1979 on hire purchase system and deposited Rs.4600/-. OP allotted seniority to the complainant but house was not alloltted for many years. OP orally assured to allot house within 6-7 years at price of Rs. 42,000/-. Later on OP issued Self-Financing Scheme 2005 for previously registered applicants. Complainant submitted application for HIG house and deposited Rs.1,00,000/-, but applicants of 1989-90 got seniority in comparison to complainant who was registered in 1979. Later on, OP cancelled application of complainant in Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 and returned registration amount i.e. Rs.3,04,800/- with interest and deducted Rs.20,000/- illegally. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that registration of complainant was cancelled as he did not deposit the amount of Self-Financing Scheme and money was returned to him. OP raised other objections also and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot independent house of MiG-B category in Mansarover Scheme at a cost on which house was allotted to Sh. Dharam Chand and Shri. O.P. Sharan on 23.10.1989 and further allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed to refund Rs.20,000/- with interest. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

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

4. As there is delay of 10 days in filing revision petition, for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, delay is condoned.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has considered all aspects in detail and State Commission was not required to repeat the same things and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6. Learned State Commission while disposing of appeal, observed as under:

“On the basis of evidence and material on record after arriving at a finding the District Forum has used proper discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respondent/complainant. We find no error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal.”

7. 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 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 f