2021 (9) TMI 1147 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction for filing of an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company - direction to Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company to be present personally through video conferencing - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that there was no occasion for the NCDRC to direct filing of an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company or to direct the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company to be present personally through video conferencing, taking into account that the reply of the complaint has been filed within the stipulated time period. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) and the rules framed thereunder contain a well defined procedure for deciding a complaint. While this Court appreciates the intent shown by the NCDRC to effectuate a settlement between the parties, the procedure for adjudication of the complaint as per the provisions of the Act has to be adhered to. No reasons have been provided for directing filing of an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer or for directing the Chief Executive Officer to be present in person on the next date of hearing. The NCDRC shall proceed to adjudicate the complaint on merits, as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the rules framed thereunder - the impugned order passed by the NCDRC is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the petitioner company to file an affidavit and appear in person through video conferencing.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the NCDRC's order directing the CEO of the petitioner company to file an affidavit and appear via video conferencing. The petitioner had already submitted a reply to the complaint within the specified timeframe. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the NCDRC's directive was unnecessary as an affidavit, signed by a director of the company, had already been filed. The Court noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, outlines a specific procedure for complaint resolution. While appreciating the NCDRC's intent for settlement, the Court emphasized adherence to the Act's procedures. Consequently, the High Court set aside the NCDRC's order, directing the NCDRC to proceed with adjudication based on the Act's provisions. The additional affidavit submitted by a director would be accepted, and the CEO's personal appearance was deemed unnecessary.

The Court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that, given the absence of a CEO, settlement discussions directed by the NCDRC should be conducted by a senior executive of the company. The High Court disposed of the petition and related applications. It also allowed the respondent to approach the Court in case of any grievances with the order since it was passed in their absence. The judgment highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures in complaint adjudication, emphasizing that the NCDRC should adhere to the Act's framework and not require unnecessary actions, such as the personal appearance of individuals who are not currently holding specific positions within the company.