Plea before SC challenges provisions of newly notified sections U/COPRA 2019

A plea before the apex court challenged the provisions under Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which have been introduced in order to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state, and national consumer dispute redressal for a.

The bench adjourned the writ petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India, which challenged the vires of above-mentioned provisions. The petitioner averred that according to the provisions, the pecuniary jurisdiction of redressal forums could be invoked based on the amount of consideration paid at the time of purchase of product/service and not on the basis of compensation sought to be claimed.

In the instant case, the petitioners declare themselves as the legal heirs of a man who died when Ford Endeavour Titanium car burnt down due to manufacturing defects. They claimed a compensation of more than Rs. 50 crores and thus filed complaint under National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

The NCDRC dismissed the complaint on the basis of its non-maintainability. It stated that pecuniary jurisdiction had to be calculated on the basis of amount paid for the car i.e. Rs. 44 lakhs.

The petitioner contented that this amendment had an anomaly identified in the provisions of COPRA 2019 dealing with pecuniary jurisdiction and hierarchy of judicial system.

They further contended that this amendment would lead to a situation where a consumer claiming a compensation of Rs. 51 crores would’ve to file complaint before DCDRC merely because he paid less than Rs. 1 crores at the time of purchase.

It was submitted by the counsel on behalf of petitioners that the new criteria for computing the compensation to be claimed has shifted from amount claimed to consideration paid at the time of purchase, which is of the nature arbitrary and unreasonable.

The petitioners prayed before the court that the provisions are irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the grounds of unreasonable classification, arbitrariness and for causing disruption to judicial hierarchy.

The court has adjourned the petition on the plea of petitioner.