Rajasthan High Court: In a petition challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission continuing the execution proceedings after the complainant sought withdrawal and issuance of an arrest warrant against the petitioner, who was not involved in the original transaction, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., held that the penalties, under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Consumer Protection Act), apply only to parties directly responsible for compliance with Consumer Commission orders, not to unrelated parties. The Court set aside the impugned order, dismissed the execution petition, and vacated the bailable warrant against the petitioner.
In the instant matter, respondent 2 filed a consumer complaint against Abhishek Communications, Mobile Zone, and ‘Nokia’ over a faulty Nokia phone purchased for ₹26,999. The complaint was decided in favor of the complainant by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Ganganagar. Despite the petitioner’s employer, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (NSNIPL), not being involved in the original sale, was later named in an execution petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner filed a petition seeking compliance with the Commission’s order by issuing a bailable arrest warrant against the petitioner, a Senior Vice President of NSNIPL.
The complainant and respondents amicably settled the dispute, and the complainant sought to withdraw the execution petition. However, the Commission rejected this withdrawal request and continued proceedings suo moto. The petitioner applied for exemption from personal appearance (Section 205 CrPC) and for dismissal of the case (Section 256 CrPC), but these applications were also dismissed.
The main issue in the instant matter is whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in issuing an arrest warrant against the petitioner under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, despite the petitioner’s lack of involvement in the handset sale and the complainant’s desire to withdraw the execution petition.
The petitioner argued that it was not involved in the sale of the faulty handset and NSNIPL was not a party in the original complaint. It was contended that the handset sale was by HMD Global, which acquired the Nokia mobile business in 2016. It was contended that the complainant expressed satisfaction with the settlement and sought to withdraw from the execution proceedings, thus negating any grounds for further actions. It was further contended that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s issuance of arrest warrants under Section 72 against the petitioner was unwarranted.
The Court agreed with the petitioner’s arguments and noted that the petitioner was unrelated to the sale of the handset and not obligated by the original order. Moreover, the complainant’s settlement and withdrawal of the petition negated any further need for compliance enforcement, rendering the suo moto proceedings against the petitioner unnecessary.
The Court reasoned that Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act applies only to individuals directly obligated by the Commission’s orders. Since the petitioner was not involved in the sale or manufacturing of the handset in question and the complainant had settled the dispute, the continued proceedings lacked legal basis. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 17-05-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Consequently, the court dismissed the execution petition (and quashed the arrest warrant against the petitioner.
[Sanjay Malik v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3263, Decided on 10-10-2024]
*Judgment by Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vivek Mathur, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P. and Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, AGA, Counsel for the Respondents
