Unpaid Consumer Awards Still Bind Petitioners As Karnataka HC Quashes Split-Trial Orders For Reassessment Of Accused 4’s Presence

The petitioners challenged orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, permitting the complainant’s applications under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. to split proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and conduct separate trials against the petitioners while proceeding separately against accused No. 4.

The underlying awards directed the petitioners and accused No. 4 to pay the amounts jointly and severally; the awards had attained finality but remained unsatisfied.

The petitioners argued that the Commission had not first taken the necessary steps to secure accused No. 4’s presence, relying on Mac Charles (I) Ltd. v. Chandrashekhar and Another, ILR 2005 Karnataka 3648.

Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for enforcement of Commission orders in the same manner as a civil decree, with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applying as far as may be.

Section 72 provides an additional penal consequence for non-compliance; it empowers the Commission to try the offence as a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and requires summary trial, notwithstanding the Cr.P.C.

In considering a request to split proceedings because an accused is absent, the Commission must satisfy itself that the person’s presence could not be procured in the normal course and must apply the principle in Mac Charles (I) Ltd. v. Chandrashekhar and Another, ILR 2005 Karnataka 3648.

Although the petitioners’ liability to satisfy the final awards remained unaffected by whether the Section 72 proceedings were split or tried together, the Commission’s orders did not state that it had considered whether accused No. 4’s presence could be procured in the normal course.

The continuing liability therefore did not cure the procedural omission. The Court held that the applications required reconsideration in light of Mac Charles and the need to assess whether ordinary means of securing accused No. 4’s presence were ineffective.

The Court clarified that the remand did not absolve the petitioners of their obligation to pay the award amounts jointly and severally, and directed them to show bona fides regarding payment.