Delhi High Court: In a petition filed assailing the order dated 09-07-2024, whereby National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) upheld the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner, Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that in the present case, the issuance of arrest warrants was not rooted in the enforcement mechanism outlined in Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the CP Act’), but rather in the powers conferred by Section 72 of CP Act, which explicitly empowered the Consumer Commissions to act as a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for trying an offence under Section 72(1) of the CP Act.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s reliance on procedural aspects of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) was misplaced. The CP Act granted the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’), the power to act with the authority of a Judicial Magistrate for trial of offences under Section 72(1) of the CP Act, which included the power to issue arrest warrants. Therefore, the arrest warrants issued under the CP Act’s specific provisions, and not the CPC. Thus, the issuance of these warrants was both appropriate and within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Background
Respondent 1 filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency of services and unfair trade practices by VXL Realtors Private Ltd., (‘Respondent 4’). Further, vide judgment dated 16-03-2024, the SCDRC, Delhi granted relief to Respondent 1, directing Respondent 4 to refund the entire amount, with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs.
Consequently, Respondent 1 filed execution application for the enforcement of the aforesaid order. In the execution proceedings, warrants of arrest were issued against the directors of Respondent 4, vide order dated 19-03-2024, whereby the petitioner was named as one of the directors. The Petitioner applied for recall of the order to the extent that it directed issuance of warrants of arrest against him. However, NCDRC upheld the warrants of arrest against the petitioner, on account of being a director of Respondent 4.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the CP Act’), made it abundantly clear that the objective of the provision was to enforce the orders of Consumer Commissions, by holding a company and its officers accountable for defying the directions of the Commissions. Consumer Commissions were empowered with judicial authority similar to that of a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for executing their directions. Hence, the issuance of arrest warrants against the directors of Respondent 4 for compelling compliance, was well within the ambit of the statutory framework of the CP Act.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s argument that he should not be held liable because he was not a director at the time the original cause of action arose, was both legally flawed and untenable. The present issue was not the assessment of personal liability for the initial acts of deficiency in service, but the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the SCDRC’s final order. As a director of Respondent 4, at the time of the enforcement proceedings, the petitioner had a legal obligation to ensure that Respondent 4 complied with the SCDRC’s directives. Therefore, the issuance of arrest warrants in this context was not an indictment of the petitioner’s personal liability, but rather a procedural mechanism to ensure that the petitioner, as a director, meets with his obligations.
The Court noted that the petitioner had also challenged the execution proceedings on the ground that the arrest warrants were issued under an incorrect provision of the CPC. However, the Court stated that this contention was fundamentally flawed. In the present case, the issuance of arrest warrants was not rooted in the enforcement mechanism outlined in Section 71 of the CP Act, but rather in the powers conferred by Section 72 of CP Act, which explicitly empowered the Consumer Commissions to act as a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for trying an offence under Section 72(1) of the CP Act.
The Court stated that Section 72(2) of the CP Act, envisaged a non-obstante clause, which granted the State Commission the jurisdiction to penalize non-compliance of its directions, which included the power to issue arrest warrants for enforcing compliance. This reinforces that the SCDRC was vested with both the jurisdiction and authority to enforce its orders, including issuing arrest warrants, if necessary. The petitioner’s reliance on specific provisions of the CPC, to suggest that the warrants were issued under an incorrect provision, was therefore misplaced.
The Court stated that the petitioner had missed the point, and the impugned proceedings were not about pinning personal liability on him for the alleged failings of Respondent 4. The question here was not about past wrongs, it was about the present failure to comply with a legally binding order. The CP Act was explicit on this point, that those in charge of a company at the time of non-compliance were accountable. By holding a directorial position during this period, the petitioner was naturally included in this responsibility.
Further, the Court stated that the petitioner’s reliance on procedural aspects of CPC was equally misplaced. The CP Act granted the SCDRC the power to act with the authority of a Judicial Magistrate for trial of offences under Section 72(1) of the Act, which included the power to issue warrants of arrest. Therefore, the arrest warrants issued under the CP Act’s specific provisions, and not the CPC. Thus, the issuance of these warrants was both appropriate and within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
[Rakesh Khanna v. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6811, decided on 25-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Saurav Kr., Rajesh Kr. and J. S. Matta, Advocates.