More Stories

Informist, Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2025

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of some sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which deal with jurisdiction of consumer commissions on the basis of value of goods and services, instead of compensation claimed. The apex court held that Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act were constitutional and were neither violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution nor manifestly arbitrary.

 

However, the top court asked the Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority to exercise their statutory duties and take measures as may be necessary for survey, review and advise the government as may be necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute. "In conclusion, we hold that the Council and Authority being statutory authorities having clear purpose and objects and vested with powers and functions must act effectively and in complete coordination to achieve the preambular object of the statute to protect the interest of consumers," said the court.

 

Section 34(1) deals with district commissions, which handle complaints where the value of goods or services doesn't exceed INR 10 million. Section 47(1)(a)(i) relates to state commissions, which have jurisdiction over complaints where the value exceeds INR 10 million but doesn't exceed INR 100 million. Section 58(1)(a)(i) defines the National Commission's jurisdiction, which encompasses complaints exceeding INR 100 million. The petitioner had said that the jurisdiction of a commission should be decided on the compensation not value of goods and services.

 

The top court said that the classification of the commission has a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved and it is not a "suspect classification". Value of consideration paid for goods or services purchased is closer and more easily relatable to compensation than the self-assessed claim for damages of a consumer, said the court. "In conclusion, while we hold that there is no unrestricted claim for compensation and that it is subject to the determination of the court, we hold that classification of claims based on value of goods and services paid as consideration has a direct nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure of judicial remedies through tribunals," said the court.

 

The apex court was hearing a bunch of petitions from Ritu Mihir Panchal and others challenging Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Panchal, whose husband had died after the vehicle he drove caught fire, had sought a compensation of INR 514.9 million. Panchal said that she was compelled to approach the district commission because of the statutory regime under the 2019 Act, whereas under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986, she could have directly approached the national commission based on compensation claimed. In the earlier Consumer Protection 1986 Act, the jurisdiction of commissions was decided on the basis of value of goods and services and compensation claimed, however, the compensation part was removed in the 2019 Act.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Akul Nishant Akhoury

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.