The Supreme Court on upheld the constitutional validity of provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state, and national commissions based on the value of goods or services paid as consideration, rather than the amount of compensation claimed.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 34, 47, and 58 of the 2019 Act, ruling that these provisions do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
In this case, the petitioners—legal heirs of a man who died after a Ford Endeavour caught fire due to an alleged manufacturing defect—sought over ₹50 crores in damages before the NCDRC. However, their complaint was dismissed as the car's price was below the NCDRC's pecuniary jurisdiction. They argued this system is arbitrary and violates Article 14, as high-value compensation claims could be relegated to lower forums solely based on product cost.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “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.”
The Court held that the Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Authority, as statutory bodies with defined purposes and powers, must function effectively and in coordination to safeguard consumer interests. Their actions are subject to judicial review, and their active engagement is essential to fulfilling the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The writ petition and civil appeal were accordingly disposed of.
Read Here: