The Supreme Court has identified potential difficulties in applying the pecuniary jurisdiction provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, where jurisdiction is determined by the value of consideration paid by the consumer for goods or services. A Bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli raised these concerns during the hearing of a consumer dispute arising from an insurance contract.
The Court noted that unlike the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which based pecuniary jurisdiction on the aggregate value of goods or services involved and the compensation claimed, the 2019 Act restricts jurisdictional computation to the consideration actually paid. This shift, the Bench observed, may lead to anomalies in certain categories of consumer disputes.
Senior advocate Gagan Gupta, representing the insured petitioner, illustrated these concerns with several examples. He pointed out that in the case of a fixed deposit account, although the account holder avails banking services, no separate consideration is typically paid for opening the account. If a dispute arises—such as loss of principal or interest—the consumer could be barred from accessing consumer fora, as jurisdiction would be determined by the consideration paid, which in this case may be zero or negligible.
Similarly, in medical services provided on a subsidised basis, where some patients pay while others receive treatment free of cost, relying solely on consideration paid could exclude certain consumers from jurisdictional protection, even though both groups fall within the statutory definition of 'consumer' under the Act.
The Bench also highlighted a practical difficulty in cases involving immovable property. If a consumer faces a deficiency related only to certain fixtures or fittings in a house or flat, and no item-wise breakdown of consideration is available, the entire value of the property may have to be considered for determining the appropriate forum, potentially inflating the claim beyond its actual scope.
Another illustration concerned motor vehicle purchases. A consumer who bought a car worth Rs. 2.50 crores but has a grievance only against a defective windshield would, under the current framework, need to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission if the cost of replacement exceeds Rs. 2 crores. However, if another consumer had paid only an advance of Rs. 40 lakhs for the same car and faces delay in delivery, that consumer would fall under the jurisdiction of the District Commission, despite the higher actual value of the goods involved. This discrepancy arises because jurisdictional thresholds are now tied to consideration paid rather than the value of the goods or services.
The Court further noted that complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, can be filed not only by individuals who have paid consideration but also by registered consumer associations, the Central or State Governments, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority. In such cases, the question of consideration paid by the complainant does not arise, necessitating a broader interpretation of how jurisdictional thresholds are to be applied.
Referencing the earlier judgment in Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025), the Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Union, submitted that the constitutional validity of the pecuniary jurisdiction provisions had already been upheld. The Bench clarified that it was not questioning the legislative competence to prescribe the basis for jurisdiction but was anxious to understand how the provisions would operate in light of the highlighted anomalies.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to file a detailed affidavit within six weeks, addressing the concerns raised and explaining the rationale behind the reduction of the National Commission’s pecuniary jurisdiction from Rs. 10 crore under the 2019 Act to Rs. 2 crore via notification dated December 30, 2021. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 8, 2026.