Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 case drew attention as it questioned the constitutionality of a fundamental change in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, determining jurisdiction based on the consideration paid rather than the compensation claimed. The case held significance for millions of consumers seeking justice in cases involving low-value goods but high-value damages, especially in the wake of tragic incidents. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 Introduction

The landmark judgement Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It originated from real-life consumer grievances where individuals were restricted from accessing higher consumer forums due to the revised pecuniary jurisdiction criteria, which are now based on the consideration paid instead of the compensation claimed. The Petitioners argued that this change was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Download Free PDF Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025

The case at hand centres around the validity of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine pecuniary jurisdiction based on the consideration paid rather than compensation claimed. The Petitioners in this case argued that this change is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution. The following are the facts of Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India -

Background: Challenge to Pecuniary Jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India case challenges the legality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions based on the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, instead of the compensation claimed by the consumer.

Writ Petition: Consumer Complaint Arising from a Fatal Car Fire

A consumer complaint was filed by the wife of a deceased man who died in a car fire involving a Ford Endeavour. The Petitioner challenged the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which limited her ability to approach the National Commission based on the price paid rather than the compensation claimed. The following are the important facts of Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India -

• The Petitioner’s husband purchased a Ford Endeavour Titanium for Rs. 31.19 lakhs.
• On 20th November, 2018, the vehicle caught fire during use which resulted in the death of the Petitioner’s husband.
• Criminal proceedings were initiated following the incident.
• The Petitioner filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• She claimed compensation of Rs. 51.49 crores for the loss.
• The complaint was filed before the District Consumer Commission, Vadodara, due to the new pecuniary jurisdiction limits under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
• She contended that under the 1986 Act, she could have approached the National Commission directly as jurisdiction was based on the amount claimed and not the consideration paid.

Civil Appeal: Dispute over Insurance Compensation Denied

The widow of a District Governor from the Lions Club of Jhansi contested the dismissal of her complaint for insurance compensation following the death of her husband due to COVID-19. The National Commission dismissed her claim based on its pecuniary jurisdiction criteria under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

• She claimed compensation of Rs. 14.94 crore based on an insurance policy provided by the Lions International Club which offered up to 2 million dollars to families of deceased members.
• The National Commission dismissed her complaint and ruled that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the consideration paid for the insurance was below Rs. 10 crores.
• According to the Commission, only complaints where the consideration paid exceeds Rs. 10 crores can be entertained at the national level irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed.

Contention of the Petitioner

In Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India the legality and constitutionality of determining pecuniary jurisdiction based on consideration paid (as per the 2019 Act) rather than the compensation claimed (as per the 1986 Act) was challenged.
It was contended that the current regime under the 2019 Act violates Article 14 due to its arbitrary and discriminatory impact on access to justice and disrupts the hierarchy of judicial forums.

Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were also addressed in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025:

• Is it constitutional to determine pecuniary jurisdiction based on the amount paid, not the compensation claimed?

The Petition challenged the constitutionality of Section 34, Section 47 and Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which assign jurisdiction based on the price paid for goods or services. The argument was that this change could unfairly prevent consumers with high compensation claims from approaching higher forums.

• Does this classification violate Article 14 of Indian Constitution?

The Petitioners in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India claimed that this system treats consumers unequally because two consumers who suffer similar harm may be forced to approach different forums, depending only on how much they paid.

• Does it unfairly block access to higher consumer forums in serious cases involving low-priced goods or services?

The main issue was that a consumer who suffers major harm from a low-priced product (e.g., a Rs. 44 lakh car causing a fatality) might be unable to approach the National Commission despite claiming large compensation.

Article 14 and Article 32 of Indian Constitution played an important role in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025. The following is the analysis of this provision:

Article 14 of Indian Constitution: Equality before Law

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision includes two important expressions:

• Equality Before the Law
• Equal Protection of the Laws

Article 32 of Indian Constitution: Remedies for enforcement of rights

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution under Part 3 of Indian Constitution is considered as the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution’ by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It provides the right to constitutional remedies, ensures the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. It empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly when their fundamental rights are violated.

Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 Judgment and Impact

On 29th April, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 34, Section 47 and Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer forums (District, State and National Commissions) based on the consideration paid for goods or services and not on the compensation claimed by the complainant.

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution which had challenged the legality of these provisions. The Court held that the classification based on the value of consideration paid is not arbitrary or discriminatory and therefore, it does not violate Article 14.

The Court in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India reasoned that the value paid for goods or services is a rational and relatable basis for determining jurisdiction. It observed that this classification corresponds with the legislative purpose of creating a hierarchical structure of consumer redressal mechanisms and is more reliable than the self-assessed compensation claims made by consumers.

The Supreme Court recognized the concerns regarding the operations of the 2019 Act. The Court in Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India directed the Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority to review the implementation of law and advise the government on steps for effective enforcement.

Conclusion

The landmark judgement Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union of India 2025 the Supreme Court on 29th April, 2025 upheld the validity of the impugned provisions. The Court held that classification based on the value paid for goods or services is reasonable and non-discriminatory. The judgment reaffirmed the legislative intent behind the 2019 Act and highlighted the importance of a structured redressal mechanism. However, the Court also advised authorities to review the practical implementation of the Act and ensure it continues to protect consumer rights effectively.