District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission) (Section 34(1))

The **pecuniary jurisdiction** of a consumer forum refers to the maximum value of goods purchased or services availed, or the claim amount, that the forum is legally empowered to entertain. It determines which forum a consumer should approach based on the value of their complaint. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, lays down the pecuniary limits for each tier of the dispute redressal machinery.

Up to Rupees 1 Crore

As per **Section 34(1)** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, subject to other provisions of the Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration **does not exceed one crore rupees**.

Determining Value:

The value for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is the **value of the goods or services paid as consideration**. This is generally the price paid by the consumer for the product or service that is the subject of the complaint. It **does not** typically include the compensation or damages claimed, unless the claim for compensation itself becomes the primary subject matter and exceeds the pecuniary limit based on the value of goods/services.

Example:

Answer:

The District Commission is the entry point for consumers with disputes involving claims where the consideration paid for the goods or services is relatively lower, up to ₹1 Crore.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) (Section 47(1))

The State Commission has original jurisdiction for complaints falling within a higher pecuniary range than the District Commission. It also serves as an appellate authority.

Above Rupees 1 Crore and up to Rupees 10 Crores

As per **Section 47(1)(a)(i)** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration **exceeds one crore rupees but does not exceed ten crore rupees**.

Determining Value:

Similar to the District Commission, the value for determining the original pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission is based on the **value of the goods or services paid as consideration**, not the total claim including compensation, unless the context requires otherwise.

Example:

Answer:

Answer:

The State Commission handles original complaints involving a higher value of consideration and also acts as the first appellate forum for orders passed by the District Commissions.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) (Section 58(1))

The National Commission is the highest tier in the consumer dispute redressal system, dealing with the most significant claims and acting as the final appellate authority within the framework.

Above Rupees 10 Crores

As per **Section 58(1)(a)(i)** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration **exceeds ten crore rupees**.

Determining Value:

Again, the primary basis for original pecuniary jurisdiction is the value of the goods or services paid as consideration. For high-value goods (like luxury properties, aircraft, large machinery) or services (major infrastructure projects where the consumer might be an association or group), the consideration paid itself might exceed ₹10 Crore.

Example:

Answer:

Cases of national importance

While not a separate head of original jurisdiction based on value, the National Commission often deals with cases that, due to their nature, complexity, or the parties involved, are of national importance. This is more of a practical aspect and reflects the type of high-value or complex cases that reach the National Commission through its original or appellate/revisionary jurisdiction. Class action complaints involving a large number of consumers across the country may also be filed before the National Commission (Section 35(1)(c)).

Appeals against State Commission Orders

A significant part of the National Commission's workload comes from its appellate jurisdiction. As per **Section 58(1)(a)(iii)**, the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders of any State Commission. This allows parties aggrieved by a State Commission's order (whether passed in original or appellate capacity) to challenge it before the National Commission. The National Commission is the final authority within the three-tier structure, although an appeal against an order of the National Commission can lie with the Supreme Court in certain cases.

The National Commission also has revisionary jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute that has been decided by any State Commission where it appears that the State Commission has exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.

The National Commission thus serves as the highest forum for original complaints exceeding ₹10 Crore, and as the primary appellate and revisionary authority over the State Commissions.

Inflationary Adjustment to Pecuniary Limits

The prompt refers to the possibility of inflationary adjustment to pecuniary limits. It is important to clarify the position under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Statutory Limits and Power of Central Government to Revise

The pecuniary limits for the District, State, and National Commissions (₹1 Crore, ₹1 Crore to ₹10 Crore, and above ₹10 Crore respectively) are explicitly laid down in Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i), and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. These limits were significantly enhanced by the 2019 Act compared to the limits under the previous 1986 Act (which were initially much lower and revised upwards over time).

The Act itself **does not contain any provision for automatic adjustment** of these pecuniary limits based on inflation or any other index. The limits are statutory and fixed as per the values mentioned in the Act.

However, the **Central Government has the power to amend the Act** (through legislative process) or potentially revise the limits through rules or notifications if specifically empowered by the Act to do so. The limits specified in Sections 34, 47, and 58 are part of the substantive sections of the Act, implying that changes to these limits would typically require an amendment to the Act by Parliament. The Government can bring about amendments to revise these thresholds as and when deemed necessary, taking into account factors like inflation, economic growth, and caseload of the forums.

Thus, while the pecuniary limits are subject to potential future revision by the government, there is no built-in mechanism in the current Act for automatic adjustment based on inflation.

Jurisdiction of District Commission

The **territorial jurisdiction** of a consumer forum determines the geographical area within which it is competent to entertain complaints. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission are primarily laid down in **Section 34(2)**.

As per **Section 34(2)** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

Where the opposite party resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises

These are the traditional grounds for determining the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts and tribunals. A consumer can file a complaint in the District Commission within whose jurisdiction:

• **The opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain:** This means the consumer can file a complaint at the place where the business accused of the defect or deficiency is located or operates. If there are multiple opposite parties, the complaint can be filed where any one of them resides or carries on business, provided the permission of the District Commission is obtained in respect of the others.
• **The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises:** The "cause of action" refers to the set of facts which give rise to the right to sue. This could be the place where the goods were purchased, where the service was availed, where the defect was discovered, where the refusal to repair/replace occurred, or where the loss or injury occurred. If different parts of the cause of action arose in different places, the consumer can choose any of those places to file the complaint.

Significant Change Introduced by the 2019 Act:

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, brought about a major change in the rules for territorial jurisdiction, significantly favouring the consumer. In addition to the traditional grounds, Section 34(2)(d) allows a consumer to file a complaint in the District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

• **The complainant resides or personally works for gain:** This new provision allows the consumer to file the complaint at their place of residence or where they work. This is a significant relief, especially in cases involving e-commerce or services availed remotely, where the seller/service provider might be located far away, and the traditional grounds might require the consumer to travel to a distant place to file the complaint.

Example:

Answer:

Thus, the District Commission has territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the opposite party, the place where the cause of action arose, or the place where the consumer resides or works.

Jurisdiction of State Commission and National Commission

The State Commission and the National Commission also have defined territorial jurisdictions, which depend on whether they are exercising original jurisdiction (entertaining a complaint directly) or appellate/revisionary jurisdiction (dealing with challenges to orders of lower forums).

Cases of appeal from District Commission

The **State Commission** has **appellate jurisdiction** over all District Commissions located within its geographical boundaries, which is typically the entire State. As per **Section 47(1)(a)(ii)**, a State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State. This means that if a party is aggrieved by an order passed by any District Commission in a particular State, the appeal against that order must be filed with the State Commission of that same State.

Cases of original jurisdiction for higher value claims

When entertaining complaints in their **original jurisdiction** (i.e., complaints filed directly with them because the pecuniary value exceeds the limit of the lower forum), the territorial jurisdiction of the State and National Commissions follows similar principles as the District Commission, but applied at their respective levels.

• **State Commission (Section 47(1)(a)(i) read with Section 34(2)):** For original complaints where the value of goods/services exceeds ₹1 Crore but does not exceed ₹10 Crore, the complaint can be filed in the State Commission within whose territorial jurisdiction:
  • The opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain within the State.
  • The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the State.
  • The complainant resides or personally works for gain within the State.
  Essentially, the State Commission's original territorial jurisdiction covers the entire State, and a complaint can be filed if any of the above jurisdictional triggers occur anywhere within that State.
• **National Commission (Section 58(1)(a)(i) read with Section 34(2)):** For original complaints where the value of goods/services exceeds ₹10 Crore, the complaint can be filed in the National Commission within whose territorial jurisdiction (which is **all of India**):
  • The opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain in India.
  • The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in India.
  • The complainant resides or personally works for gain in India.
  Since the National Commission has jurisdiction over all of India, its territorial jurisdiction for original complaints is effectively the entire country, provided one of the triggers under Section 34(2) occurs anywhere in India.

Appeals against State Commission Orders:

The **National Commission** has **appellate jurisdiction** over all State Commissions across India. As per **Section 58(1)(a)(iii)**, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders of any State Commission. Therefore, an appeal against an order of any State Commission in any State of India must be filed with the National Commission in Delhi.

The National Commission also has revisionary jurisdiction over State Commissions under Section 58(1)(b), exercising this power over all State Commissions in India.

In summary, the territorial jurisdiction determines the appropriate level and location of the consumer forum to approach, whether for an original complaint based on value and location of parties/cause of action/consumer's residence, or for challenging an order from a lower forum.

Consumer Disputes

The **subject-matter jurisdiction** of the consumer forums refers to the types of cases or disputes that they are legally empowered to handle. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically outlines the matters that fall within the purview of the District, State, and National Commissions.

The primary subject matter jurisdiction of the consumer forums is to entertain **consumer disputes**. A 'consumer dispute' is defined in **Section 2(8)** as a dispute where the person against whom a complaint is made denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint.

A 'complaint' itself is defined in **Section 2(6)** as any allegation in writing made by a complainant that:

• an **unfair contract** has been entered into by the opposite party with the consumer;
• an **unfair trade practice** or a **restrictive trade practice** has been adopted by any opposite party;
• the **goods** bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more **defects**;
• the **services** hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from any **deficiency**;
• a trader or a service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a **price in excess** of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods or displayed on the price list exhibited by him or under any express contract;
• goods which are hazardous to life and safety when used are being offered for sale to the public;
• a **product liability action** lies against the product manufacturer, product seller or product service provider.

Therefore, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the consumer forums extends to entertaining complaints making any of these allegations, provided the complainant is a 'consumer' and the dispute falls within the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the specific forum.

Relating to defects in goods or deficiencies in services

Complaints concerning **defects in goods** (as defined in Section 2(10)) or **deficiencies in services** (as defined in Section 2(11)) are the most common types of disputes handled by the consumer forums. This forms a core part of their subject-matter jurisdiction. Consumers can seek remedies like repair, replacement, refund, or compensation for losses suffered due to faulty products or inadequate services.

Unfair trade practices

Complaints alleging that a business has adopted an **unfair trade practice** (as defined in Section 2(47)) against the consumer also fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the consumer forums. This allows consumers to challenge deceptive or fraudulent practices such as misleading advertisements, false representations, bait advertising, etc., and seek orders directing the business to cease such practices and provide compensation.

Restrictive trade practices

Complaints alleging that a business has adopted a **restrictive trade practice** (as defined in Section 2(40)) that imposes unjustified costs or restrictions on the consumer are also within the subject-matter jurisdiction. This allows consumers to seek redressal against practices that manipulate the market to the detriment of consumers, such as hoarding or tie-in sales (if they meet the criteria of RTP under the Act). (As noted earlier, while some RTPs overlap with competition law, the consumer forums' jurisdiction is specifically tied to the practice imposing unjustified costs or restrictions on the consumer).

Other allegations that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction include complaints about unfair contracts, overcharging, offering hazardous goods, and product liability actions.

Exclusion of Jurisdiction

While the subject-matter jurisdiction of the consumer forums is wide, there are certain types of disputes or relationships that are generally **excluded** from their purview under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. These exclusions are typically based on the definition of 'consumer' or 'service'.

Matters outside the scope of 'Consumer' or 'Service'

Complaints are excluded if they do not involve a 'consumer' as defined in the Act, or if the matter does not relate to 'goods' or 'services' as defined. Specific exclusions arise from:

• **Commercial Purpose (Exclusion):** Disputes where goods are bought or services are availed **exclusively for resale or for any commercial purpose** (except for earning livelihood by self-employment) are outside the jurisdiction. For example, a large company buying machinery for its factory cannot complain under the Act for defects in the machinery as it's for a commercial purpose.
• **Service Rendered Free of Charge (Exclusion):** Services provided without any consideration are excluded from the definition of 'service' (Section 2(42)), and hence complaints about such services are outside the jurisdiction. For example, free services provided by government hospitals (where no charge is levied) or genuinely free demonstrations are typically excluded.
• **Contract of Personal Service (Exclusion):** Services rendered under a contract of personal service (master-servant relationship) are excluded from the definition of 'service' (Section 2(42)). Therefore, disputes between an employer and an employee regarding the service rendered by the employee are not consumer disputes.
• **Matters not related to goods or services:** Disputes related to immovable property (unless it involves a service like housing construction), or actionable claims, which are excluded from the definition of 'goods'.
• **Disputes outside the scope of 'Complaint':** Matters that do not fit any of the allegations listed in the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(6) (e.g., disputes related to share market investments per se, which are often governed by SEBI regulations and contractual terms, unless involving a specific service deficiency by a broker).

Specific Legal Exclusions or Alternative Forums:

In certain cases, although a matter might appear to be a consumer dispute, specific laws or judicial interpretations might place it outside the exclusive jurisdiction of consumer forums or suggest alternative forums:

• **Matters covered under specific Acts with exclusive jurisdiction:** Some laws might provide for specific tribunals or forums with exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of disputes, which might sometimes override or limit the jurisdiction of consumer forums for matters covered by those Acts. However, courts have generally held that the jurisdiction of consumer forums is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, unless specifically barred.
• **Fraud or Complex Issues Requiring Extensive Evidence:** While consumer forums have wide powers, for highly complex matters involving intricate questions of fact, extensive examination of witnesses, or allegations of serious fraud requiring detailed investigation (beyond a simple UTP allegation), courts might sometimes suggest that a civil court might be a more appropriate forum, although this is determined on a case-by-case basis. However, the 2019 Act aims to handle complex issues, including product liability, within the consumer forum framework.
• **Labour Disputes:** Disputes related to employment contracts or conditions of service of employees are typically handled under labour laws and before labour courts/tribunals, not consumer forums, as they fall under 'contract of personal service'.
• **Partnership Disputes:** Disputes between partners in a partnership firm are generally not considered consumer disputes.

Therefore, for a complaint to be maintainable before a consumer forum, it must strictly fall within the definition of a 'consumer dispute' involving 'goods' or 'services' availed by a 'consumer' (not for excluded purposes), and not be specifically barred by other laws.