Supreme Court orders Centre to explain anomalies in consumer fora jurisdiction

The core issue is whether jurisdiction depends on the value of goods/services paid as consideration or the amount of compensation claimed.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: M/s Avon Elastomers (India); Respondents: M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.; Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli.

What the court decided

• The Court directed the Union of India to file an appropriate affidavit within six weeks from 13-08-2026.
• The affidavit must respond to alleged anomalies in fixing jurisdiction based on consideration paid.
• The affidavit must address the reasoning behind the reduction of the National Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction from ten crores to two crores via notification dated 30.12.2021.
• The matter was listed for hearing on 08th October, 2026.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the validity of pecuniary jurisdiction provisions was previously upheld in 'Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.' (2025 SCC OnLine SC 974), but the current issue is the interpretation of these provisions.
• The Court stated that the anomalies highlighted by the petitioner are illustrative.
• The Court expressed anxiety to understand how pecuniary jurisdiction operates in light of the highlighted anomalies before interpreting the provisions.