A.P. Sahi, President

1. The Complainant Company has presented this Complaint through its Authorised Signatory. The present Complaint is regarding allegations of deficiency in a high-end Maserati for which admittedly a sum of Rs.1,85,77,000/- was paid as ex-showroom price for the vehicle. In addition thereto, an insurance premium of Rs.3,38,903/- was paid, followed by a road-tax and registration statutory charges to the tune of Rs.37,94,970/-, a sum of Rs.5,90,188/- towards the purchase of special registration number 9999 and Rs.50,000/- towards consultant's fee. Learned Counsel for the Complainant has also invited the attention of the Bench to the invoice to urge that the on-road cost of the vehicle on adding up the aforesaid components crosses the bar of Rs.2.00 crores and therefore, the Complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of this Commission. We had called upon the learned Counsel for the Complainant to study the various definitions in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction that have been settled judicially and we accordingly passed this order on 19.02.2026:

"Heard Mr. Subramaniam, learned counsel, who urges that he may be permitted to assist the Bench with more particulars and the judgments, if any, in support of the submissions regarding the paid consideration keeping in view the judgment of this Commission in the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 845 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 974.

Put up on 27.02.2026."

2. Learned Counsel has come up with his submissions contending that the registration tax and road tax were also part of the package making the vehicle capable of delivery, and since the vehicle cannot be run without registration, the amount of taxes paid should also be construed to be part of the consideration paid in order to compute pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. For this he relies on Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act to urge that the vehicle cannot be driven without a registration and therefore, this amounts to parting with a consideration that should be included for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. In order to understand as to what would be consideration, we may herein extract the order  passed by this Commission in the case of Pyaridevi (supra), which is as follows:

                          "M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Howrah, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 833 of 2020 against National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal and three other Parties seeking the following reliefs:

                          "91. That the Complainant seeks financial reliefs on account of financial loss and detriment to the life and livelihood of its stakeholders and for the restoration of the Company. The total sum claimed for the restoration of the Factory Premises being Rs. 28,23,05,135/- and relief from NPA which includes: a. The sum of Rs. 9,96,50,500/- for the restoration of damaged and tilted buildings. b. The sum of Rs. 73,03,656/- for the expenditure already incurred in restoration and replacement of Plant and Machinery.

                          c. The sum of Rs. 9,92,12,841/- for the loss of stocks. d. The sum of Rs. 86,38,138/- for restoration and replacement of Plinth and foundation. e. The sum of approximately Rs. 6,75,00,000/- for relief from NPA Other Reliefs and compensation sought:

                          f. Interest at the rate of 18% from the date of occurrence of the event. g. Rs. 1,00,00,000/-for mental pain and agony of the stakeholders. h. Rs. 2,72,00,000/- (Approx.) towards compensation on account of loss of business. As Prior to the incident the business of the Company was growing at the rate of 25% every year.

                          i. An amount towards ante lite, pendent lite and future interest as the Hon'ble Commission deemed fit.

                          j. Cost of the litigation as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Commission;

                          X. Prayer Clause In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to grant: a. The above mentioned Compensation/relief sought. b. Compensation for deficiency in service on account of wrongful repudiation of the Claim in its entirety in contravention of the terms and conditions of the 'Standard Fire and Special Perils' Policy of Insurance, delay caused by the Respondents in settlement of the claim and non-determination of the estimate of loss sustained by the manufacturing unit of the Complainant;

                          c. Any order(s) which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith."

                          2. From a perusal of the averments made in the Complaint, we find that on 2nd June, 2016 the Complainant had taken Insurance Coverage from National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal under its Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy initially for a total sum of Rs. 28,00,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight crores and twenty thousand only) by paying a premium of Rs. 3,20,525/- (Rupees Three lac twenty thousand five hundred and twenty five only) only. The Complainant further took an additional security coverage of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen crores only) on 25th August, 2020 by paying a premium of Rs. 1,23,037/- (Rupees One lac twenty three thousand and thirty seven only). According to the Complainant, Howrah Region where the Factory Premises of the Complainant is situated was severely hit by heavy rainfall, storm and river water flooding causing extensive coverage of water logging of Howrah Region for several days. Flood water had risen 4-5 feet inside the factory premises of the Complainant, which is abutted by banks of the river Ganga on two sides causing considerable damage to Buildings, Plants and Machinery and Stocks of the Complainant. It caused tilting and partial collapse of Factory Building, damaged several machines and electrical installations and damaged stocks, which was buried under a pile of concrete debris from the collapsed roof of a covered loading/unloading area. The Complainant informed the National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata on 05.09.2020 about the loss suffered and for making the payment of the loss suffered by estimating it.

                          3. After exchange of correspondence and personal interaction the National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Party No. 1 vide letter dated 29.11.2018 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant sought the Survey Report from the Opposite Party No. 1 and finally in January, 2020, the Complainant through J Mukherjee & Associates, Advocates and Solicitors sent a letter to the National Insurance Company Limited calling upon the Insurance Company to withdraw the letter of Repudiation for making payments under the Insurance Policy.

                          4. The Consumer Complaint was sent by Ajinkya Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Complainant via Gmail only on 31.07.2020. The Office had registered the Complaint on 05.08.2020. Therefore, this Complaint is to be considered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2019") which had come into force with effect from 20.07.2020/24.07.2020.

                          5. In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs. 3,20,525/- and Rs. 1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs. 4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019.

                          6. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Complainant submitted that under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") the National Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the good or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore), whereas under Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores). According to the learned Senior Counsel only the value of the compensation claimed has been omitted from Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 and the present Consumer Complaint is maintainable and this Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. He further submitted that a liberal view should be taken as if "the word value of consideration paid" is taken to be the amount paid for the purchase of goods or services by a Consumer then even though Insurance Policy taken by the Consumer be above Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), factually there will no instance of making payment by any Consumer premium of more than Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore) and if such a strict view is taken then the claims regarding Insurance will have to be necessarily filed either before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and not before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which will create great hardship to such Consumers.

                          7. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that under the Act of 1986, pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined by taking the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. Meaning thereby that the value of the goods or services as also the compensation is to be added to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the National Commission has the jurisdiction or not. This law was laid down by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC). Thus in the Act of 1986 it was "the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed" taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, if a person has agreed to purchase a Flat/Apartment/Plot for about Rs. 60,00,000/- and he is claiming refund as also compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- then the value will exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission. Similar, would be the case of taking Insurance Policy of above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-or may be below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- but taking into consideration the premium paid and the compensation claimed if the value exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/- the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission.

                          8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.

                          9. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:

                          "34.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:"

                          "47.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--

                          (a) to entertain--

                          (i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:"

                          "58.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction--

                          (a) to entertain--

                          (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:"

                          10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations

                          11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is only Rs. 4,43,562/- (Rupees four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable."

5. The aforesaid decision has been noted by the Apex Court in Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein the validity of the change of pecuniary jurisdiction had been challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The challenge raised to the same was rejected and the amendments of pecuniary jurisdiction were upheld. The Apex Court rejected the argument of the anomalies that was suggested and dismissed the same.

6. However, in the present case the issue is only as to whether that component of registration and road tax, which is being claimed by the Complainant to be a paid consideration, can be treated as such and included along with the ex-showroom price of the vehicle for computing pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has cited several decisions with regard to indirect taxes and to contend that with the compulsory nature of registration being necessary, there are judgments to support the same hence, a combined reading of the ratio of the decisions cited at the bar, it is urged that the pecuniary jurisdiction is available to this Commission. Learned Counsel has also relied on the Advance Ruling Authority orders passed under Section 55 of the Maharashtra VAT Act, which he contends would be applicable on the facts of the present case as the vehicle has been purchased from Mumbai. He contends that from the said advance ruling it is clear that the dealers collect the required charges including insurance and the RTO tax from the purchaser in order to comply with the conditions under the Motor Vehicles Act and since the said components were added to the ex-showroom cost of the motor vehicle as they were charges received by the dealer and would therefore, fall within the definition of sale price under Section 2(25) of the Maharashtra VAT Act.

7. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that in the instant case also, this entire amount was collected through the dealer and was also indicated while offering the vehicle to the Complainant and as such, with this on road price paid by the Complainant, the total exceeds Rs.2.00 crores, hence, the Complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

8. Learned Counsel has also relied on the Sales of Goods Act and its definition in the written submissions in order to explain as to when a property passes as defined under Section 19 and Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act.

9. At the outset, we may point out that for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, Goods were defined as Goods defined under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 under Section 2(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, this definition has been completely altered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, where the definition of Goods under Section 2(21) means every kind of moveable property and includes food as defined under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Therefore, any reference to the Sale of Goods Act may not be relevant with the definition of Goods under Section 2(21) of the 2019 Act.

10. The purchase of a vehicle by the Complainant is a moveable property for consideration and therefore, any allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice may be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission provided it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of the concerned Commission.

11. Learned Counsel has through his written submissions explained the interplay of the Motor Vehicles Act to contend that the owner of a vehicle under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a person in whose name the vehicle is registered. It is, therefore, urged that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, ownership is of the person, in whose name vehicle stands registered. Thus, the Complainant can be acknowledged as the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act in the event of its registration and therefore, this is also an indication that the process of registration is also connected with the recognition of the ownership of the vehicle, which has been acquired by the Complainant after paying the registration, road tax and insurance charges. Learned Counsel therefore urges that the final cost of the vehicle, only after valid registration, has to be taken into account as it is a statutory requirement and therefore, amounts to payment of consideration for the said vehicle to be used on road and for no other purpose.

12. In order to analyse the arguments advanced, it may be pointed out that the present Complaint is with regard to defects and deficiencies in the vehicle, which has been purchased by the Complainant, a corporate entity. It is not known as to whether the purchase is for any personal use or otherwise is not for any other purpose connected with a commercial enterprise.

13. Nonetheless, at this stage, we are only concerned with the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of this Commission in the light of the arguments advanced by the Complainant. There is no doubt that the consideration paid for the vehicle is only Rs.1,85,77,000/-. What the Complainant alleges that with the payment of Rs.37,94,970/- towards road tax and registration, the said amount crosses the pecuniary limit of Rs.2.00 crores, and therefore the complaint can be entertained by the National Commission.

14. For the purposes of Value Added Tax in Maharashtra, it has been pointed out that the final cost of the vehicle on road is communicated to the customer and since the charges and taxes represent the expenditure incurred by the dealer in making the goods available to the purchaser in a deliverable state, the addition to the cost of the goods would be the component of price to the purchaser.

15. The question before us is as to whether the words used under Section 58(1)(a)(i) "paid as consideration" would include the final cost price of the vehicle purchased so as to attract the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

16. It is correct that a vehicle cannot be driven on a road, unless the taxes are paid. It is therefore, compulsory to get a vehicle registered on payment of road tax but the question is, whether such a statutory tax payable under the Motor Vehicles Act would amount to a consideration paid to the seller, who in the instant case is the manufacturer through the dealer. The vehicle has been purchased and the allegations of deficiencies are all about the alleged defective conditions of a vehicle manufactured by the manufacturer as also the lack of services by the dealer. The allegations are of violation of the service contract and the extended warranty documents/warranty conditions, which the Complainant alleges to be an unfair trade practice.

17. The allegations are of not providing timely services and failure to rectify the defects. In the background above, the payment of road taxes and registration charges cannot be a consideration paid for the vehicle and its services, even though to bring the vehicle on road, such payments are compulsory. The Complainant can while claiming damages if it comes to some sort of refund or otherwise, which may also include any expenses incurred for bringing the vehicle on road after purchase, but can such registration charges which has been deposited in the Government Exchequer, be treated "paid as consideration" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to the seller?. The registration and the road tax are services, which the purchaser has to compulsorily deposit and pay to the Government in order to run a vehicle on road. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages that no person shall "drive" any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the said provision. The compulsion is that if a vehicle has to be driven, then it has to be registered for being run on a public place. It is for the said purpose and for any other consequences arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act for imposing penalty or damages as envisaged under the said Act that the word owner has been defined to mean that person in whose name the vehicle has been registered. The identity of an owner only for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act is therefore one in whose name the vehicle is registered.

18. So far as the purchase of a vehicle is concerned, the goods on purchase namely the motor vehicle, would stand transferred in ownership on payment of the agreed and settled price at the ex-showroom level, as it is well-known that all other payments like registration charges and insurance are compulsory and are non-negotiable. What is negotiable is only the price offered for the vehicle and its acceptance by the purchaser fully knowing that whatever is the price settled would thereafter entail a percentage of the said price as insurance and also registration charges as per the relevant rules. The registration charges or the insurance is paid for the benefit of the purchaser, who is the consumer of the goods, which he has to bear compulsorily because of the statutory provisions and is not a demand for the price of the vehicle either by the manufacturer or the dealer. It is to be deposited it its entirety in the State Exchequer. The phrase "paid as consideration" therefore, cannot be construed to mean and include the payment of taxes and any other statutory remuneration to the coffers of the Govt. so as to broaden the definition of pecuniary jurisdiction as indicated in the decision of Pyaridevi (supra) and as per the Provisions of the 2019 Act.

19. Since the showroom price paid is the consideration paid by the Complainant to the manufacturer and dealer and the registration and road tax charges have gone to the Government exchequer, the same cannot be treated to be part of the consideration paid to the seller or service provider for assuming the pecuniary consideration in the matter. The contention of the learned Counsel on the basis of the provisions of Maharashtra VAT Act cannot come to his aid in as much as the definition and the provisions therein that were considered for the purposes of assessing the liability of a dealer cannot be applied nor are they equivalent to in any way of the definition of "paid as consideration" as used under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

20. The Complaint, therefore, cannot be entertained for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and is accordingly consigned without prejudice to the rights of the Complainant to approach the concerned State Commission for the redressal of its grievances.