HEMANT SAHU Vs. SHAILJA SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission and question of maintainability of the petitions. This batch of petitions involve common question of law. Therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) W.P. (227) Nos. 1520/09,1532/09,1531/ 09, 1524/09, 1539/09, 1522/09, 1521/09, 1545/09, 1197/09, 2121/09, 2123/09, 1913/ 09, 1916/09, 1917/09, 1930/09, 2122/09, 2239/09, 2094/09, 2096/09, 1202/09, 2116/ 09, 2237/09, 2120/09, 2240/09, 2238/09, 2242/09, 2241/09, 284/09, 247/09, 282/09, 283/09, 248/09, 1193/09, 1921/09, 1928/09, 1919/09, 7051/08, 1203/09, 416/09, 411/09, 246/09,6951/08, 6947/08,6949/08,6950/08, 1198/09 & 281/09 are directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur, (for short 'State Commission'), whereby and whereunder the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on account of refusal to comply Second Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986') by the petitioner. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner seeking inter alia following reliefs:

(3.) Remaining petitions i.e. W.P. (227) Nos. 483/09,484/09,564/09,594/09,624/09,1204/ 09, 455/09, 2223/09, 539/09, 1201/09, 711/ 09,794/09,705/09,1199/09,450/09,452/09, 1190/09,1192/09,1189/09,1206/09,1194/09, 1195/09, 2367/09, 2368/09, 1914/09, 2363/ 09, 1196/09, 2364/09, 2366/09, 2377/09, 2365/09,683/09,1191/09, 1205/09,1918/09, 1922/09, 1657/09, 1658/09, 540/09, 795/09, 593/09 and 706/09 are directly preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg, (for short 'Distt. Forum), whereby and whereunder the Distt. Forum has allowed the petition of complainants and passed the order for payment of compensation against the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner seeking inter alia following reliefs