As per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, what is the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission ?
- Ten lakh rupees
- Fifty lakh rupees
- One crore rupees
- Five crore rupees
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
According to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is limited to cases where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees. This means that any complaint regarding a defect or deficiency in services that involves an amount up to one crore rupees can be filed in the District Commission.
The consumer protection framework under this act aims to provide a swift and efficient redressal system. The categorization of jurisdictional limits ensures that consumer grievances are addressed at an appropriate level, with district commissions managing claims within this specified monetary range.
This jurisdictional limit helps in decentralizing the handling of consumer disputes, ensuring that smaller value claims can be resolved quickly and without overburdening higher level commissions. Thus, the correct option is:
One crore rupees
Top Questions on Company Law
The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envis aged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimi nation or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation, solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Company Law
- A company is vested with a distinct legal personality separate from its members. This was held in which of the following case?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Company Law
- Memorandum of Association is a:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Company Law
- In which of the following business associations the liability of its members is joint and several?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Company Law
- A company for charitable purpose may be incorporated as:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Company Law
Questions Asked in AILET LLM exam
- Match the following:
I. Chief Election Commissioner A. Elected by Rajya Sabha
II. Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha B. Elected by Members of Lok Sabha
III. Speaker of Lok Sabha C. Appointed by the President
IV. Chairman of Public Accounts Committee D. Appointed by the Speaker of Lok Sabha
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- What must be shown before the court to obtain an injunction to stop nuisance?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Law of Torts
- Which of the following is not an act included in the exclusive rights of performers under Section 38A(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Intellectual Property Law
- Which of the following statement is not true regarding the object of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Environmental Law
- Which of the following statement regarding the application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not true?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Criminal Law