New Delhi, Apr 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which prescribes pecuniary jurisdiction of the district, state and national commissions based on the considerations paid for the goods and services.

The pecuniary jurisdiction bar in the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 defines the monetary value of claims that each forum of the consumer dispute redressal commission (district, state, and national) can deal with.

Also Read | Assam: 34 Arrested for 'Defending Pakistan on Indian Soil' After Pahalgam Terror Attack, Says CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the plea challenging sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions based on value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation, saying they were not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

"We dismiss the constitutional challenge to sections 34, 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act and declare that the said provisions are constitutional and are neither violative of Article 14 nor manifestly arbitrary," the bench said.

Also Read | Hottest April 2025: Delhi Records Warmest, Most Polluted April in 3 Years Amid Rain Deficit, Says IMD, CPCB.

It said Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority constituted under the Act shall in exercise of their statutory duties under sections 3, 5, 10, 18 to 22 take such measures as may be necessary for survey, review and advise the government about such measures as may be necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute.

The top court passed the order on writ petitions in which some petitioners have claimed that due to the statute, they were forced to approach the district court owing to the pecuniary jurisdiction bar or else they would have approached the national commission according to the old law.

Referring to the power of Parliament to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, the bench said there is no doubt about the fact that Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

It said under Entry 95 of List I, read with Entries 11-A and 46 of List III, and in exercise of power under Article 246, Parliament has enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Justice Narasimha, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the legislative competence to prescribe jurisdiction and powers of a court, coupled with the power to constitute and organise courts for the administration of justice, takes within its sweep the power to prescribe pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the courts or tribunals.

"Parliament has the legislative competence to prescribe jurisdiction and powers of courts. This power extends to prescribing different monetary values as the basis for exercising jurisdiction," it said.

On the issue of provision being discriminatory, the bench said the classification based on the value of goods or services based on the amount paid as consideration is valid.

"'Consideration' is an integral part of forming any contract. It is also an integral part of the definition of a 'consumer'," the bench added.

It said, "Therefore, vesting jurisdiction in the district, state or national commission on the basis of value of goods or services paid as 'consideration', is neither illegal nor discriminatory."

The top court said this classification also has a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

"The value of consideration paid for goods or services purchased is closer and more easily relatable to compensation than the self-assessed claim for damages of a consumer.

"It is clear that the determination of jurisdiction of the district, state or national commissions on the basis of value of consideration paid for purchase of goods and services has rational nexus to the object of provisioning hierarchy of judicial remedies," it said.

The bench said there is also a misconception that there is some kind of loss of judicial remedy.

"The relief or compensation that a consumer could claim remained unrestricted, and at the same time, access to the state or the national commission was also not taken away. It is well settled that there is no right or privilege of a consumer to raise an unlimited claim of compensation and thereby choose a forum of his choice for instituting a complaint," it said.

The bench said, "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."

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)