Supreme Court seeks Centre’s view on consumer forum jurisdiction basis

The Supreme Court on August 18 asked the Central government to file an affidavit explaining how the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer courts should be determined, the key question being whether it should depend on the price paid for goods or services or on the amount of compensation claimed. A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli flagged anomalies in the current framework under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and also sought a justification for a 2021 notification that reduced the National Commission's jurisdiction from ₹10 crore to ₹2 crore.

Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, appearing for the petitioner Avon Elastomers, argued that a consideration-based test would lead to absurd outcomes. For example, a buyer of a ₹2.5 crore car with only a defective windshield would have to approach the National Commission, while a person paying only a ₹40 lakh advance for a car but facing delivery delays would be limited to a district forum. He also pointed to problems for fixed deposit holders and patients receiving free treatment. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee responded that for insurance contracts, the premium would clearly constitute consideration. Advocate Jagdish Chandra Solanki added that voluntary consumer associations and the government can also file complaints, where no consideration is paid.

The court gave the Union government time to reflect on these anomalies and file an affidavit before it interprets the relevant provisions. The court clarified that this case concerns the interpretation of pecuniary jurisdiction, not its validity, which was upheld in Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India (2025). The matter will be heard next on October 8.