2021 (9) TMI 1147 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court sets aside NCDRC order, emphasizes Consumer Protection Act procedures.

The High Court set aside the NCDRC's order directing the CEO to file an affidavit and appear via video conferencing, emphasizing adherence to the Consumer ... Procedure for adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act - direction to file affidavit/personal appearance of corporate officer - judicial review of quasi judicial directions for compliance with statutory procedure - acceptance of affidavit filed by company director in lieu of corporate officer - representation for settlement talks by senior company executive in absence of CEODirection to file affidavit/personal appearance of corporate officer - procedure for adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act - Impugned direction by NCDRC that the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company must file an affidavit and personally appear by video conferencing was unwarranted. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner had already filed its reply within the stipulated period and that the Act and rules prescribe the procedure for adjudication of consumer complaints. No reasons were recorded by the NCDRC justifying the exceptional requirement of an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer or his personal appearance for the purposes of adjudication or settlement. In the absence of such reasons and having regard to the statutory procedure, the direction was unnecessary and could not be sustained. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter ordered to proceed to adjudication on merits in accordance with the Act and rules. [Paras 6]Direction requiring the CEO to file an affidavit and to appear personally set aside; NCDRC to proceed to adjudicate the complaint on merits as per statutory procedure.Acceptance of affidavit filed by company director in lieu of corporate officer - Affidavit filed by one of the directors of the petitioner company is to be taken on record in place of the Chief Executive Officer's affidavit. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that the additional affidavit already filed by a director of the petitioner company would be taken on record and that the NCDRC should not insist on the personal appearance of the Chief Executive Officer. This course was approved as consistent with the statutory adjudicatory process and the factual position that the company did not have a CEO at present. [Paras 6]Affidavit filed by a director to be accepted; NCDRC shall not insist on CEO's personal appearance.Representation for settlement talks by senior company executive in absence of CEO - Settlement discussions directed by the NCDRC may be conducted on behalf of the petitioner by a senior executive where the company does not have a Chief Executive Officer. - HELD THAT: - The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that, given the present absence of a Chief Executive Officer, settlement talks may be undertaken by a senior executive of the company. This endorsement clarifies permissible representation for settlement purposes and ensures that settlement efforts can proceed without imposing an impossible requirement for CEO participation. [Paras 7]Settlement talks may be conducted on behalf of the petitioner by a senior executive in the absence of a CEO.Final Conclusion: Impugned directions of the NCDRC requiring the CEO to file an affidavit and personally appear were set aside; the NCDRC must proceed to adjudicate the complaint on merits in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act and rules, the director's affidavit filed by the petitioner is to be taken on record, and settlement discussions may be conducted by a senior executive in the absence of a CEO; respondent free to seek relief if aggrieved by this order. 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.