Administration of justice: Consumer complaint before National Commission against original opposite party no.1 and 2 – On the date of hearing, submission made by counsel of original party no.1 that matter was settled between the parties – On the next date of hearing, complainant made grievance that he was forced by the representatives of the two opposite parties to sign on blank papers and visits threatening him were made by their representatives to force him into a “settlement” – On 26.08.2021, National Commission directed the directors of the two companies to appear on the next date in person, either in physical hearing or through video conferencing with counsel to clarify their position with regard to these allegations – On next hearing, the director of original opposite party no.1 appeared through video conferencing – However, on behalf of original opposite party no.2, the authorised representatives and their counsel only appeared before the National Commission – The director did not appear as directed – Submission made on his behalf that application seeking exemption from appearance was moved which was pending in the Registry – On 3.9.2021, National Commission again directed the directors of both the companies to appear on next date – The director of original opposite party no.2 again did not appear – It was pointed out that against order dated 26.08.2021, a review application was filed which was pending – By order dated 16.9.2021, National Commission directed to issue bailable warrants against the director of original opposite party no.2 and directed his production before it on next date – Aggrieved original opposite party no.2 filed instant appeal – Held: The allegations made by the complainant were serious in nature – However, at the same time, the allegations were yet to be considered in detail by National Commission, after giving an opportunity to the opposite parties – The opposite parties were represented through their counsels and also through their authorised representatives – No specific allegations were recorded in order dated 26.08.2021 against the director of original opposite party No.2 – Even the review application against order dated 26.08.2021 was pending before the Tribunal – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of bailable warrant was not warranted at this stage – Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and only where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through their authorised representative or through their counsel – Orders dated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 are quashed – At this stage, original opposite party No.2 is permitted to be represented through authorised representatives and through counsel – However, it will be open for the National Commission to require the presence of the director of the appellant company, if required, in future.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: It is true that if the allegations made by the original complainant recorded in order dated 26.08.2021 “to pressurize him and giving threats to enter into settlement” are found to be true, the same are very serious and can be said to be interfering in the administration of justice. However, at the same time, the allegations are yet to be considered in detail by the National Commission after giving an opportunity to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are represented through their counsel and even through their authorised representatives, who remained present before the National Commission. Even as per the allegations made by the complainant recorded in order dated 26.08.2021, the representatives of the opposite companies gave threats and forced him to enter into settlement and there were no specific allegations against the Director of original opposite party No.2. Even the review application against order dated 26.08.2021 is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of the bailable warrants against the director of original opposite party No.2 was not warranted at this stage. It cannot be disputed that free access and unfettered right to approach/justice, as permissible by law, is inbuilt in our judicial system where rule of law prevails. Any attempt to impede or obstruct the course of justice, not to speak of exercising any coercion against anybody, who is before the court or authority in order to seek justice, cannot be lightly taken or be countenanced with. However, at the same time, the case of the complainant is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or established and proved and the opportunities are to be given to the opposite parties. In view of that, orders dated 26.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 directing the director of the appellant company to personally remain present through physical mode or through video conferencing and subsequent order dated 16.09.2021 issuing bailable warrants are quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the National Commission to pass further order after giving opportunity to both the opposite parties to represent their case on the allegations made by the original complainant recorded in order dated 26.08.2021. At this stage, the appellant-original opposite party No.2 be permitted to be represented through his authorised representatives and through his counsel. However, it will be open for the National Commission to require the presence of the Director of the appellant company, if required, in future. Review application to recall order dated 26.08.2021 pending before the National Commission, may be heard, decided and disposed of by the National Commission in accordance with law and on merits. [Paras 5.1, 6][951-C-G; 952-C-D, E-H; 953-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.