In a surprising decision on April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act 2019’s provisions pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum, which is based on the value of the goods or services paid but does not always include the entire amount of compensation sought. This almost seems like an order from above, stating that lawmakers have purposefully developed a systematic system for an effective consumer dispute resolution process rather than an ad hoc one.
The Case’s Background
• Rutu Mihir Panchal and others vs. Union of India and others (WP(C) 282/2021) was a writ petition that brought the case under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of a deceased man, created a dispute over the cause of his death, which was purportedly a car fire that was triggered by a manufacturing defect in a Ford Endeavour worth ₹44 lakh. Before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), they sought damages surpassing ₹50 crores. However, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, determining that the consideration paid (₹44 lakhs) was insufficient to reach the ₹2 crore threshold.
• The plaintiffs contested the constitutionality of Sections 34, 47, and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 on the grounds that they violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) by creating an illogical classification.
The Supreme Court’s Views and Decision
Justices Manoj Misra and P.S. Narasimha made up the two-judge panel that dismissed the constitutional argument. Justice Narasimha declared in her ruling that the contested clauses were not capricious or in violation of Article 14.

Important Points to Note:
1. Classification Is Valid Based on Consideration: The Court affirmed that it is both quite fair and logical for jurisdiction to be based on the value of consideration provided rather than the compensation requested. It said: “Consideration value is and may be a legitimate criterion for categorizing claims in order to establish pecuniary jurisdiction.”
2. Classification Rationale: The Court determined that there was a logical connection between the classification and the goal of the law that established the hierarchy of consumer dispute resolution mechanisms:
“Compared to a self-assessed claim for damages, the value of consideration given for goods or services is closer and easier to relate to compensation.”
3. No Discrimination or Arbitrariness: The Court clarified that these clauses do not impose discriminatory treatment; instead, they guarantee that cases are appropriately sent to the forums based on impartial standards.
4. Functional Issues Recognized: In addition to upholding the provision, the Court acknowledged several operational issues and instructed the Central Consumer Protection Authority and Council to adopt proactive measures in accordance with Sections 3, 5, 10, and 18-22 of the Code.
Framework of Pecuniary Jurisdiction Statutes
The Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission, and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, have the following financial jurisdictions:
• District Commission: Claims for which consideration was less than ₹50 lakh
• State Commission: For a deliberation time of ₹50 lakh and claims under ₹2 crore
• National Commission: Over ₹2 crore claims.
The goal of this change is to avoid forum shopping and ease significant case backlogs by considering jurisdiction based on actual amount paid rather than claim amount (as per the previous Act of 1986).
Reasons Put Forward by the Petitioners
• There have been anomalies and arbitrary classifications that violate Article 14, according to the petitioners, who claimed that switching to a consideration basis where a lower price would result in lower-level commission cases for large dollar value damages.
• However, the Court rejected this claim, arguing that self-assessed damages, which are subject to arbitrary inflation, are a far less objective and consistent metric than the value of the products or services.
The 2019 Consumer Protection Act’s assessment of pecuniary jurisdiction is now unambiguously and clearly defined by the Supreme Court’s ruling. In order to strengthen the fundamental goal of creating a tiered and effective consumer grievance redresser system, the constitutionality of classification based on consideration paid has been reinforced. The ruling recognizes the need for improved implementation accessibility as well as realistic and workable legal classifications that are important for guaranteeing access to justice.
This decision serves as a reminder that when evaluating constitutional challenges within developing legal frameworks, objective norms and statutory intent must be taken into consideration in order to ensure public interest judicial efficiency.
With a vast collection of material on a variety of legal topics compiled by the top experts in the field, Sharks of Law provides a comprehensive legal solutions facility. You can look for a lawyer who can satisfy your legal needs for an online consultation with this law business. If you have any questions that call for legal advice, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the requisite experience in every area.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993

https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/courts-can-modify-arbitral-awards-under-sections-3437-in-some-cases-supreme-court