The Delhi High Court has recently affirmed the authority of consumer commissions to issue arrest warrants under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the Consumer Protection Act grants consumer commissions judicial powers comparable to those of a first-class judicial magistrate, enabling them to enforce their orders effectively.

"Hence, the issuance of arrest warrants against the directors of the Judgment Debtor Company for compelling compliance, is well within the ambit of the statutory framework of the CP Act," the order dated September 25 stated.

The Delhi High Court was hearing a petition filed by Rakesh Khanna, the Director of VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd., challenging an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld arrest warrants issued against him by the Delhi State Consumer Commission.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Naveen Kumar Aggarwal, alleging deficiency of services and unfair trade practices by the company. The State Commission ruled in Aggarwal’s favor, and during the execution of this order, it issued arrest warrants against Khanna for non-compliance.

Khanna sought to have the order recalled, first by approaching the State Commission and later the NCDRC, both of which upheld the warrants. In his defense, Khanna argued that he was not the Director of the company when the cause of action occurred, asserting that the warrant was issued after his resignation, which he claimed was disregarded by the authorities.

He also contended that the warrants were issued arbitrarily and without following due legal procedure under Order XII Rule 41(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The Court, however, dismissed Khanna's arguments, stating that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the State Commission's order extends to all company officials involved, regardless of when they assumed or left office.

“Petitioner’s role as a director, places upon him an obligation to ensure that the Company complies with the order of the SCDRC, failing which he becomes liable under the provisions of the CP Act,” the Court observed.

Therefore, the Court held Rakesh Khanna, the director of the company, accountable for the non-compliance of the State Commission's order and upheld the arrest warrants issued against him. It further affirmed that the State Commission possesses both the jurisdiction and authority to enforce its directives, including the power to issue arrest warrants.

Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 grants the National, State, and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (NCDRC, SCDRC, and DCDRC) the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences, ensuring compliance with their orders.

Advocates Saurav Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and J.S. Matta represented Rakesh Khanna in the case.

Case Title: Rakesh Khanna vs. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors