Introduction
The Calcutta High Court held that Consumer Forums are not legally authorized to issue arrest warrants. The Judgement came after a petition was filed by Abdul Manim Mollah (Petitioner) seeking to quash execution proceedings and a warrant of arrest issued against him by a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the Calcutta High Court.
Background
The origin of this case lies in the private opposite party being the purchaser of a tractor from the petitioner in 2013, with an advance. A substantial part of the remaining money was financed by L&T Finance, leaving some final deposit to be paid to the petitioner. The registration certificate and other vehicle documents were to be handed over upon full payment. However, the private opposite party defaulted in making repayments of the loan, so the tractor was repossessed and sold by the finance company.
In the year 2016, the private opposite party filed a complaint against the branch manager of S&S Automobiles and sought from him the registration certificate for the tractor and trailer, compensation, and cost of litigation before the Consumer Forum.
In the year 2018, the Consumer Forum ordered the respondent to deliver the registration certificate on receiving the dues from the complainant amounting to Rs. 25,716/-. Thereafter, the private opposite party launched execution proceedings (EA 41 of 2018), wherein an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner on 13th December 2019.
The petitioner claimed he was never made a party to the consumer case or the execution case and only became aware of it upon the issuance of the arrest warrant. It was later brought to the Consumer Forum’s attention in 2022 that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of S&S Automobiles.
Key Points
The primary legal issue in this case was that whether a consumer forum can issue arrest warrant or not in an execution proceeding.
The petitioner argued that he was never made a party to the consumer case or the execution case and only became aware of the proceedings when the warrant of arrest was issued. The case was filed against the branch manager of S&S Automobiles, while the petitioner is the sole proprietor. However, the court refrained from commenting on this particular issue as it was reportedly being addressed by the State Commission.
Regarding the power to issue a warrant of arrest, the court referred to a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench which held that a Consumer Commission cannot issue a warrant of arrest in the enforcement of its order. However, the Commission can issue a warrant for detention in civil prison according to the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, states that orders of the Consumer Forums are to be enforced in the same manner as decrees of a Civil Court, making the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable, with the modification that references to a ‘decree’ are to be read as references to the ‘order’ under this Act.
Therefore, an order for specific performance, like the one in this case (handing over the registration certificate), can be executed by detaining the judgment debtor in civil prison, attaching and selling their property, or both.
The executing court can issue a warrant of arrest to compel the attendance of the judgment debtor, and the costs associated with the warrant and civil prison are to be borne by the decree holder upon assessment by the Forum.
Section 72 of the Act allows the Commission to initiate proceedings for penalty for non-compliance with its orders. The decree holder can pursue either section 71 or section 72 for the execution of the Consumer Forum’s order.
The court explicitly stated that the law does not authorize the Forum to issue a warrant of arrest for the enforcement of its order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Recent Developments
The Calcutta High Court observed that the Consumer Forum exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The Court quashed the impugned orders, including the arrest warrant issued on December 13, 2019, and the subsequent orders based on it.
Conclusion
The High Court held that Consumer Forums must follow civil procedures for enforcement and cannot issue arrest warrants under criminal law. Accordingly, the revisional application was allowed, and the previous orders—including the arrest warrant—were quashed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
