Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 13-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s Avon Elastomers (India) filed Special Leave to Appeal against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission judgment dated 21-10-2020; Respondents: M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.
  • Issue: Whether the pecuniary jurisdiction of District, State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions depends on the value of goods/services paid as consideration or on the amount of compensation claimed.
  • Petitioner argued that using consideration creates anomalies, citing fixed deposits, savings accounts, subsidised medical services, and partial defects in housing and automobile components.
  • Respondent (Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee) contended that consideration can be identified (e.g., insurance premium) and that the legislature has authority to fix jurisdictional limits.

Observations & Reasoning

  • The Court noted illustrative anomalies raised by counsel, including situations where no monetary consideration is paid yet consumer status exists.
  • It observed that non‑consumer‑initiated complaints by voluntary associations or Central Authorities under Section 2(5) and Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, would not involve consideration.
  • The Court referred to its earlier judgment in W.P. (C) No.282/2021 (Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. vs Union of India) which upheld the validity of the pecuniary jurisdiction provisions.
  • The Court emphasized the need for a detailed affidavit from the Union of India to address the highlighted anomalies and to explain the reduction of the National Commission’s pecuniary jurisdiction from Rs 10 crore to Rs 2 crore by the notification dated 30‑12‑2021.

Final Outcome

  • The Union of India was directed to file an appropriate affidavit within six weeks from the date of the order, addressing all the anomalies and the rationale for the jurisdictional reduction.
  • No substantive change to the existing jurisdictional framework was ordered; the matter will be revisited after the affidavit is filed.

Topics: Consumer Jurisdiction, Pecuniary Limits