Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 275

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A. P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
NURTURE WORK SPACE SOLUTIONS INDIA LLP Through its SHARATHCHANDRA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
BAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP Through its BAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP – Respondent
DIARY CASE NO. NC/DN/9/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Subramaniam, K.S. Badrinathan, Danish Saifi

For determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the ex-showroom price (the actual consideration paid to the seller/service provider) is considered. Mandatory statutory payments like road tax and registration charges to the government exchequer do not constitute 'consideration paid' and cannot be included.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Determination of consideration - Whether registration, road tax and insurance charges are to be included as 'consideration paid' for computing pecuniary jurisdiction - Held, no - Consideration paid to seller for the goods is the ex-showroom price only - Statutory payments to the government exchequer cannot be construed as 'consideration paid' for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under the Act. (Paras 17, 18, 19)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 39 - Registration of vehicle - Mandatory statutory requirement for driving in public places - Does not transform statutory tax payments into 'consideration' paid to the seller for the goods. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a high-end luxury vehicle paid ex-showroom price, insurance, and road tax/registration charges. The complainant argued that the total on-road price crossed the Rs. 2 crore pecuniary jurisdictional threshold of the National Commission, asserting that registration and road tax should be included as part of the consideration paid by the consumer.

Findings of Court:
The Commission held that registration charges and taxes are paid to the government exchequer and are not part of the price paid to the seller or service provider. Consequently, only the ex-showroom price constitutes 'consideration' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Issues: Whether statutory road taxes and registration fees paid to the government can be included in the 'consideration paid' for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Ratio Decidendi: The pecuniary jurisdiction under the 2019 Act is determined strictly by the value of consideration paid for the goods or services. Statutory charges payable to the government for the benefit of the user are not consideration paid to the seller/manufacturer and thus cannot be included for computing pecuniary threshold.

Result: Complaint dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Table of Content
1. statutory taxes do not form part of consideration for pecuniary jurisdiction calculation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER

JUSTICE MR. A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant Company has presented this Complaint through its Authorised Signatory. The present Complaint is regarding allegations of deficiency in a high-end Maserati for which admittedly a sum of Rs.1,85,77,000/- was paid as ex-showroom price for the vehicle. In addition thereto, an insurance premium of Rs.3,38,903/- was paid, followed by a road-tax and registration statutory charges to the tune of Rs.37,94,970/-, a sum of Rs.5,90,188/- towards the purchase of special registration number 9999 and Rs.50,000/- towards consultant’s fee. Learned Counsel for the Complainant has also invited the attention of the Bench to the invoice to urge that the on-road cost of the vehicle on adding up the aforesaid components crosses the bar of Rs.2.00 crores and therefore, the Complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of this Commission. We had called upon the learned Counsel for the Complainant to study the various definitions in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction that have been settled judicially and we accordingly passed this order on 19.02.2026:

“Heard Mr. Subramaniam, learned counsel, who urges that he may be permitted to assist the Bench with more particulars and the judgments, if any, in support of the submissions regarding the paid consideration keeping in view the judgment of this Commission in the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 845 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 974.

Put up on 27.02.2026.”

2. Learned Counsel has come up with his submissions contending that the registration tax and road tax were also part of the package making the vehicle capable of delivery, and since the vehicle cannot be run without registration, the amount of taxes paid should also be construed to be part of the consideration paid in order to compute pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. For this he relies on Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act to urge that the vehicle cannot be driven without a registration and therefore, this amounts to parting with a consideration that should be included for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. In order to understand as to what would be consideration, we may herein extract the order passed by this Commission in the case of Pyaridevi (supra), which is as follows:

“M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Howrah, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 833 of 2020 against National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal and three other Parties seeking the following reliefs:

“91. That the Complainant seeks financial reliefs on account of financial loss and detriment to the life and livelihood of its stakeholders and for the restoration of the Company. The total sum claimed for the restoration of the Factory Premises being Rs. 28,23,05,135/- and relief from NPA which includes:

a. The sum of Rs. 9,96,50,500/- for the restoration of damaged and tilted buildings.

b. The sum of Rs. 73,03,656/- for the expenditure already incurred in restoration and replacement of Plant and Machinery.

c. The sum of Rs. 9,92,12,841/- for the loss of stocks.

d. The sum of Rs. 86,38,138/- for restoration and replacement of Plinth and foundation.

e. The sum of approximately Rs. 6,75,00,000/- for relief from NPA Other Reliefs and compensation sought:

f. Interest at the rate of 18% from the date of occurrence of the event.

g. Rs. 1,00,00,000/-for mental pain and agony of the stakeholders.

h. Rs. 2,72,00,000/- (Approx.) towards compensation on account of loss of business. As Prior to the incident the business of the Company wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 275

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONA. P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, MemberNURTURE WORK SPACE SOLUTIONS INDIA LLP Through its SHARATHCHANDRA REDDY – AppellantVersusBAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP Through its BAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP – RespondentDIARY CASE NO. NC/DN/9/2026

Cases Referred (1)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A. P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
NURTURE WORK SPACE SOLUTIONS INDIA LLP Through its SHARATHCHANDRA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
BAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP Through its BAGGA LUXURY MOTORCARS LLP – Respondent
DIARY CASE NO. NC/DN/9/2026