Sanjay Malik vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Assailed herein is an order dated 17.05.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Ganganagar under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in Case No.10M/2021, whereby, arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner.

Briefly, relevant facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2 (original complainant) filed a Consumer Complaint against Respondent No.3 i.e. Abhishek Communications, Sri Gangarnagar, Respondent No.4 i.e. Mobile Zone, Sri Ganganagar (not a legal entity) and "Nokia," which again is not even a legal entity, vide Consumer Complaint No. 237/2019. Issue raised therein was a faulty Nokia phone purchased for Rs.26,999/-. The Petitioner was not made a party to civil court proceedings, nor his employer M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited a party to the same.

2.1. Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, in which the Petitioner is employed is in the business of making handsets.

2.2. Nokia/NOKIA mobiles in India were manufactured by Nokia India Private Limited until 2014, after which the business was sold to Microsoft. Microsoft then sold the mobile manufacturing business to HMD Global on 01.12.2016. HMD Global (www.hmdglobal.com) is solely responsible for supporting NOKIA-branded phones in India, and their contact address is HMD Global India, Pioneer Urban Square, Tower-C, 5th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-62, Gurugram-122002, Haryana. The Petitioner neither has nor has ever had any relation with HMD Global. The mobile phone was purchased by Respondent No. 2 from HMD Global.

2.3. Complaint filed by respondent No.2 was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2.4. Be that as it may, an execution petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was filed. Curiously, the Petitioner was made party by name along with Nokia Networks India as a party. The Petitioner was summoned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Ganganagar.

2.5. However, being a petty dispute, if any, the matter was amicably settled between Respondent No. 2 and Respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the complainant himself moved an application to withdraw his execution petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, learned Commission, vide impugned order dated 29.04.2022, dismissed the said application.

2.6. On the other hand, the petitioner herein also filed two applications i.e. one under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption from appearance and second under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for dismissal of the main petition pending before CDRF.

2.7. On 17.05.2022, vide the impugned order, and without citing or addressing even any case law, the application of the Petitioner too was dismissed. Hence this petition.

At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel would contend that as far as the dispute between the consumer and the Nokia Solution Networks India Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same stands settled to the full satisfaction of the complainant – consumer. Subsequent thereto, he even filed an application to withdraw the execution proceedings instituted against the company, of which the petitioner is an authorized representative being the Senior Vice President.

He would further contend that the proceedings under Section 72 of the Act are now being conducted suo moto by the Commission. The complainant / respondent No.2 is not pursing the matter. He has been paid the in full as per the compensation awarded to him. Complainant also made a declaration in this regard before the learned Commission that he also wants the matter to be withdrawn. There is thus no party against whom the petitioner is having adversarial proceedings.

4.1 He would thus contend that once the consumer / the complainant seeks to withdraw the proceedings on being satisfied with the settlement, the Commission ought to have allowed withdrawal of the pending execution proceedings.

Having heard the counsel for petitioner, at the outset I am of the view that the stand taken by the learned senior counsel, as noted above, deserves to be accepted. I am in agreement with his arguments. Apart therefrom there are the reasons which are not far to seek as is borne out from succeeding paragraphs.

For ready reference Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is reproduced herein below:

“(1) Whoever fails to comply with any order made by the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty – five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.”

A perusal of the above clearly reflects that ‘whoever fails to comply’ cannot be any random person and has to mean a person who was required to comply with the order. The petitioner is neither employed with entity which sold Handset to the Respondent No.2 nor was even in the business of manufacturing or selling handsets. It is also not clear as to from amongst whole lot of the various executives with Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, how the petitioner was unlucky one to have his name chosen to be impleaded in the petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide impugned order dated 17.05.2022 issued bailable warrants insisting for the personal presence of the petitioner on the ground that upon being summoned in the execution proceedings, he did not deliberately cause appearance.

Petitioner at no stage had any intent of causing any inconvenience to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, or showing any disrespect in any manner and he had taken all appropriate steps by engaging a counsel, who had caused appearance on his behalf and had apprised the Commission of the compliance of the award/ order dated 19.11.2020, which was under execution.

The compliance of order under execution is not disputed as the complainant (Respondent No.2), who filed the original complainant before the District Consumer Forum, has chosen not cause appearance either before this Court or even the forum. The same is clearly suggestive of that he has no objection if the present petition is allowed and execution proceedings are dropped.

Being so, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.05.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Ganganagar under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in Execution Case No.10M/2021, is set aside. Execution Petition i.e. Case No.10M/2021 pending before the District Consumer Forum also stands dismissed.