The Court was hearing a petition raising the question of how such jurisdiction ought to be determined.
Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that basing jurisdiction on the value of goods or services paid as consideration would lead to a host of anomalies and could leave several genuine cases of deficient service outside the reach of consumer forums altogether.
To illustrate this, Gupta gave the Court several examples. He pointed out that a person who buys a car worth ₹2.5 crore, but has a complaint only about a defective windshield, would have to approach the National Commission to get it fixed. In contrast, someone who pays just a ₹40 lakh advance for a car and faces a delay in its delivery would only need to approach a district commission.
He also flagged that fixed deposit holders and savings account holders technically pay no “consideration” for a bank’s services, raising the question of how deficiencies in handling their money would be treated under a consideration-based test.
He cited a third example concerning patients who receive subsidised or free treatment at hospitals, questioning how their complaints would be assessed if the pecuniary jurisdiction depended on the amount paid.