The classification of pecuniary jurisdiction based on consideration paid under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is constitutional and does not violate Article 14, ensuring effective consumer dispute resolution.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Constitutionality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,¹[Hereinafter referred to as the 2019 Act.] prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed are challenged in the writ petition,²[W.P. (C) No. 282 of 2021.] under Article 32 of the Constitution and the civil appeal,³[Leave Granted and arising out of SLP (C) No. 1738 of 2022 against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Diary No. 19172/NCDRC/2021-CC dated 08.10.2021.] against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,⁴[Hereinafter, “National Commission”.].

2. Facts in the Writ Petition: The short facts, to the extent that they are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner’s husband purchased a sedan –Ford Endeavour Titanium car from S.P. Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., authorised dealer of Ford India for an amount of Rs. 31.19 Lakhs. Tragically, the vehicle caught fire on 20.11.2018 while being driven leading to death of petitioner’s husband. Though criminal proceedings were initiated, the present proceedings are concerned with the statutory proceedings initiated under the 2019 Act by way of consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Vadodara for compensation of Rs. 51.49 crores with interest thereon. Pending disposal of the consumer complaint, the appellant approached this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging 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was compelled to approach the district commission because of the statutory regime under the 2019 Act, whereas under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986,⁵[Act No. 68 of 1986. Hereinafter, “1986 Act”.], she could have directly approached the national commission based on compensation claimed. The relevant portion of the prayer made in the writ petition is as follows:

“a) Be pleased to issue appropriate guidelines, Writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other Writ or declaration or directions to declare that newly added Proviso of Section 34(1), Proviso to Section 47(1) and Proviso to Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 directing that for Pecuniary Jurisdiction instead of "Compensation Claimed", the "consideration paid at the time of purchase of Services" will be applicable as quoted in Para 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of Arbitrariness and contrary for the purpose of hierarchy of Judicial System in India.

b)…..”

3. Facts in the Civil Appeal: In the civil appeal, the appellant’s husband, a District governor of the Lions Club of Jhansi, passed away due to COVID-19 on 25.07.2020. When her claim on the basis of insurance policy offered by Lions International Club, up to two million dollars as compensation to families of deceased members was denied, she approached the national commission seeking Rs. 14.94 crore. However, the national commission rejected her petition on the ground that the consideration for the insurance policy does not exceed Rs.10 crores. The relevant portion of the order passed by the national commission is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference;

“…The Pecuniary Jurisdiction has been specified in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, where the consideration paid, if exceeds Rupees Ten Crores, will give power to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to entertain any Complaint. It has nothing to do with the amount of Compensati