Section 47 CPA: Jurisdiction of State Commission

Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act: Jurisdiction of State Commission

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(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:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit:

Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.

(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:

Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.

(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 47

Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act governs the original, appellate, and supervisory jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Statutory Powers & Jurisdiction: Section 47 establishes the three-fold statutory jurisdiction of the State Commission.
Sub-Section (1): District: Under sub-section (1)(a), it exercises original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds the District Commission limit but does not exceed the prescribed ceiling (currently ₹50 lakhs to ₹2 crores).
Sub-Section (1) Provision: Under sub-section (1)(a)(iii), it entertains complaints against unfair contracts where consideration is within its pecuniary band.
Appellate Remedies & Forum: Under sub-section (1)(a)(ii), it exercises appellate jurisdiction against orders of any District Commission within the State.

Under sub-section (1)(b), it exercises revisionary and supervisory powers over District Commissions in cases of jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 161: The Supreme Court clarified the demarcation of pecuniary limits between the District, State, and National Commissions, emphasizing that the value of consideration paid—rather than the total claim amount—governs forum selection under the 2019 Act.

Legal Commentary:

Section 47 marks an important shift: forum selection is now determined strictly by the actual 'consideration paid' by the consumer, rather than inflated compensation claims, thereby preventing complainants from artificially inflating claims to bypass the District Commission.

Section 47: Jurisdiction of State Commission

Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act: Jurisdiction of State Commission

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 47