Karnataka HC Recalls NBW Against Credit Society President, Directs Consumer Commission To Consider His Personal-Liability Objection

The petitioner, who was arrayed as a respondent in consumer complaints against Kittur Rani Channamma Urban Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd., challenged proceedings initiated under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for alleged non-compliance with orders allowing those complaints and directing repayment with interest and costs.

After appearing and obtaining bail, the petitioner was absent at a subsequent hearing. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined his request for exemption from appearance and issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW).

In these connected writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, the petitioner also contended that he could not be personally liable for the society’s alleged deficiency in service; he acknowledged that this jurisdictional objection had been raised before the Commission but not considered, and that no appeal had been filed against the consumer order.

Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides for the filing of consumer complaints, while Section 72 provides for proceedings concerning non-compliance with orders under the Act; the Court noted that Section 72 proceedings are independent and involve an enquiry.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to give directions concerning the pending proceedings and to recall the NBW.

The petitioner’s jurisdictional contention had not been considered by the Commission, and the Court treated that issue as one for consideration in the independent Section 72 enquiry, after giving the parties sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The record showed that the petitioner had appeared and obtained bail but was later absent; the Commission had rejected his exemption request and consequently issued the NBW.

Rather than decide the underlying liability question, the Court directed the Commission to consider the parties’ jurisdictional contentions and recalled the warrant.

It directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to consider the parties’ jurisdictional contentions in the Section 72 proceedings, pass appropriate orders after affording sufficient opportunity, and kept all contentions open.

The NBW against the petitioner was recalled.