Calling out a petitioner’s reliance on procedural aspects of Civil procedure Code (CPC), 1908, as ‘misplaced’, Justice Sanjeev Narula  of  Delhi High Court in his  order dated 25.09.2024, highlighted that the Consumer Protection  (CP) Act,  granted the State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission(SCDRC), the power to act with the authority of a Judicial Magistrate, First Class,  for trial of offences under Section 72(1) of the CP Act, which included the power to issue arrest warrants.   Dismissing the petitioner’s plea the court noted that the issuance of arrest warrants was both ‘appropriate ‘  and ‘within the Commission’s  jurisdiction’. 

Fact summary of the instant case is that 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).Vide judgment dated 16.03.2024, the SCDRC, Delhi, granted relief to Respondent 1, with directions to refund the entire amount, with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs. Thereafter, Respondent 1 filed an application for execution of the aforesaid order. The execution proceedings order dated 19.03. 2024, entailed   issuance of arrest warrants   against the directors of Respondent 4, whereby the petitioner was named as one of the directors. Aggrieved by the order of issuance of arrest warrants against him , the petitioner, applied for   recall  of the order in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC however upheld the warrants of arrest against the petitioner , reasoning that he being a director of Respondent 4 is culpable. 

Calling focus to Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘ CP Act’) , the court  stressed that the objective of the stated  provision  was to enforce the orders of Consumer Commissions, by holding a company and its officers accountable for defying thew 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  petitioner proffered  that he was not a director at the time the original cause of action arose  therefore  he should not be held liable the court noted that  his argument  was  ‘legally flawed and untenable’.  It was the court’s observation  that 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 indication of the petitioner’s personal liability, but rather a procedural mechanism to ensure that the petitioner , as a director, meets with his obligations. 

To the petitioner’s challenge of the execution proceedings on grounds that the arrest warrants were issued under an incorrect provision of CPC, the court observed  that  the contention was ‘fundamentally flawed’. Reasoning that, in the instant 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 the 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.

Placing  reliance on specific provisions of the CPC, the petitioner in his arguments   suggested  that the warrants were issued under an incorrect provision. Calling out this argument of the petitioner as  ‘misplaced’  the court reasoned  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  had  missed the point"  and the  impugned proceedings  were not about pinning personal liability  on him for  the alleged failings of Respondent 4’’ observed the court which highlighted  that   the question here was not about past wrongs, it was about the present failure to comply with a legally binding order. The CP Act, the court observed, 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.

Concluding that the issuance of arrest warrants were both ‘appropriate’ and ‘within the Commission’s jurisdiction  the  court observed that  petitioner’s reliance on procedural aspects of CPC was ‘equally misplaced’ noting that 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 were issued under the CP Act’s specific provisions, and not the CPC reasoned the court in the  order.