District Consumer Forums cannot impose deposit conditions on bail related to execution proceedings, as enforcement remedies are strictly outlined in the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties. Rule. Heard finally by consent.

2. By these writ petitions, petitioners take exception to order dated 2.5.2024 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in Execution Application Nos.18/16, 20/50, 19/155, 14/18, 17/62, 17/47, 17/48, and 19/156; order dated 29.7.2024 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Circuit Bench, Nagpur in Execution Application No.21/2017; order dated 8.8.2024 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhandara in Execution Application No.22/43; and order dated 30.7.2024 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhandara in Execution Application No.19/31 imposing condition of depositing amounts while releasing them on bail. The legality of imposing such condition has been questioned under writ jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that orders impugned are per se illegal and without authority vested with the District Forum to pass such orders. It is submitted that no proceeding as contemplated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is initiated against petitioners. The orders to arrest have been passed in execution proceedings and NBWs were issued against petitioners. By executing NBWs, they were produced before the said Forum and while releasing them on bail, condition was imposed to deposit amount Rs.1,60,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.694/2024); Rs.5,70,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.698/2024); Rs.2,80,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.697/2024); Rs.3,75,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.703/2024); Rs.1,72,500/- (in Cr. W.P. No.704/2024); Rs.1,37,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.705/2024); Rs.1,55,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.776/2024); Rs.3,90,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.82/2024); Rs.2,75,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.860/2024); Rs.19,45,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.905/2024); and Rs.12,80,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.907/2024). It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that such a condition cannot be imposed while releasing petitioners on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents submitted that despite directions given by the said Forum, petitioners have not deposited amounts. Before the said Forum, petitioners shown their willingness to deposit amounts and, therefore, said directions are given. One of petitioners i.e. Suresh Kondbaji Burrewar gave an undertaking before the said Forum that he is ready and willing to deposit the amount and also ready to deposit total amount in all three complaint cases and has undertaken to deposit balance decreetal amount within one month from that day. Thus, in view of undertakings given by petitioners, directions were given to them to deposit amounts and, therefore, no illegality is committed by the said Forum. In view of that, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

5. Before adverting to issue involved and submissions made by learned counsel appearing for parties, few facts leading to filing of these petitions are required to be seen.

6. The respondents filed consumer complaints against petitioners who are builders and developers alleging deficiency in service. The said complaints were allowed partly by the said Forum. The petitioners failed to comply with directions and, therefore, respondents filed execution applications before the said Forum. The petitioners appeared as NBWs were issued against them. The said Forum was pleased to allow the said applications and gra