A Case Analysis of Samasth Infotainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal


In the present matter, the Hon’ble West Bengal High Court was posed with the question relating to the legality of the arrest warrant in an execution proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appeal arose out of the Impugned order of arrest passed by the Ld. District Commission in E.A./15/2022 wherein the Ld. District Commission had issued a warrant of arrest against the judgment debtors despite an impending appeal filed by the Judgment Debtors against the final judgment and subsequently, went into appeal against the order of issuance of arrest warrant.


Factual Background

As the complainants in the consumer complaint filed before the Ld. District Consumer Commission, Samasth Infotainment Pvt. Ltd. was the target of a consumer complaint (Case No. 45 of 2021) filed by the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 (homebuyers). The complainant requested a number of remedies, chief among them (i) the transfer of apartments and parking spaces upon payment of the remaining balance; (ii) the registration of the apartments and parking spaces; (iii) ₹30 lakhs in compensation for unlawful demands pertaining to GST and interest; and (iv) the issuance of a Completion Certificate.

On February 28, 2022, the matter was decided ex parte. The Ld. DCDRC granted the complaint at a cost of Rs. 20,000 and mandated that the Opposite Parties pay ₹4,00,000 in compensation for the service inadequacy within 60 days, either jointly or separately. Additionally, the Ld. Commission instructed the Opposite Parties to deliver the Completion Certificate, issue a possession letter, and transfer possession. Additionally, after obtaining ₹2,96,906 from the complainants, the Ld. Commission instructed the Opposite Parties to register the Deed of Conveyance. The Commission held that simple interest of 7% annually would be applied to the compensation in the event of non-compliance.

On the other hand, the Opposite Parties did not follow the sequence. The opposing parties subsequently appealed the order dated 28.02.2022 and requested a delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The decree holders received a show-cause notice from the Ld. DCDRC, which also scheduled a hearing for September 2022. The DCDRC issued an arrest warrant against the petitioners on 05.08.2022, setting the execution report for 14.09.2022, despite the ongoing appeal. The petitioners, who were offended by this order, filed a challenge in the Calcutta High Court against the issuing of the arrest warrant.


Legal Issues

  1. Whether the DCDRC had the authority to issue a warrant of arrest against the petitioners in the execution of its order?
  2. Whether coercive measures such as arrest could be invoked before exhausting alternative means of execution, such as attachment of property?


Analysis

Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 give the Complainant, Decree-Holder, the choice of how to carry out the Order after the case has been decided in his favour.

1. Consumer Forums’ Authority in Execution Proceedings

The High Court looked at consumer forums’ authority under the 2019 Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling in L&T Finance Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Rana &Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5894-5895 of 2021), which maintained that consumer commissioners have the authority to use coercive measures, such as issuing arrest warrants, to implement orders, was cited by the Honorable High Court. Such coercive measures, however, are to be used only after all other options, such as property attachment, have been exhausted.

2. Application of Ibrat Faizan vs. OmaxeBuildhomePvt. Ltd. (2022)

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ibrat Faizan (Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022), which the Calcutta High Court cited, consumer forum orders had to be carried out in conformity with civil procedure guidelines. It was noted that the due process of law would be violated if the first step in execution were an instantaneous arrest.

3. Violation of Due Process

The DCDRC issued an arrest warrant without first using all available remedies, including property attachment and a show-cause notice for nonpayment, the Court observed. The warrant was deemed premature and disproportionate because the Opposite Parties had already appealed and requested a delay condonation.


Conclusion

The DCDRC’s 05.08.2022 arrest warrant was revoked by the High Court. Prior to using coercive measures like arrest, it mandated that all other options for execution, like property attachment, be exhausted. To ensure adherence to natural justice principles, the matter was remanded to the DCDRC for reconsideration. This ruling reaffirmed that consumer commissions must guarantee due process compliance prior to issuing coercive directives, even if they have significant enforcement authority.