State Consumer Commission Has Unlimited Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Pre-2019 Cases: J&K HC [Read Judgment]

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that, for consumer cases filed before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is unlimited, and that the Commission cannot dismiss complaints claiming more than Rs. 50 lakh as non-maintainable.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani quashed the dismissal orders and remanded the matters to the State Commission to proceed from the stage at which they were closed.

The Bench was hearing an appeal, FAO(D) 20/2026, and a writ petition, WP(C) 2098/2026, by Tabeen Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. against National Insurance Company Ltd. and another. The State Commission had disallowed the complaints solely because the compensation claimed exceeded Rs. 50 lakh, without examining the merits, relying on the High Court’s decision in Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz Khan (FAO(D) No. 01/2025).

Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Irfan Rasool Wani, and for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Z.A. Qureshi with Ms. Rehana Fayaz, traced the statutory history of Section 15 of the J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987. As originally enacted, the State Commission’s limit was Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10 lakh. The 1997 amendment substituted these with Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 30 lakh. The 1998 amendment then omitted the words “but does not exceed rupees thirty lakhs”, removing the upper cap. A later amendment, referred to in the judgment as the 2011 amendment, purported to substitute “rupees five lacs” and “rupees thirty lacs” with “rupees ten lacs” and “rupees fifty lacs”.

Counsel for the insurer, Mr. N.A. Dendru, fairly submitted that the Commission had been entertaining claims above Rs. 50 lakh and stopped only because of an observation in Met Life that the Rs. 50 lakh limit operated under Section 15, and that otherwise claimants would be left remediless.

The Bench first held that Met Life does not apply. That case concerned alleged concealment of a pre-existing disease and the Commission’s refusal to allow the insurer to examine its investigator and doctor. Although paragraph 11 mentioned Section 15, the Court said it “has not drawn any conclusion or any kind of precedent oriented mandate” on the section, and “the Obiter Dicta cannot have a binding value in the aforesaid perspective.”

On the substance, the Court found a “legislative anomaly”. The 1998 amendment had removed the Rs. 30 lakh ceiling, yet the later amendment “substituted” Rs. 30 lakh with Rs. 50 lakh, though the former limit no longer existed. The Court held that the legislative intention in 1998 was clear, to give the State Commission unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, while the later substitution “created a cap without creating a remedy”. Because the National Commission had no jurisdiction in pre-2019 cases, claimants above Rs. 50 lakh would have had no forum at all.

The Court contrasted the position under the 2019 Act, under which the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission have jurisdiction up to Rs. 1 crore, between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 10 crore, and above Rs. 10 crore respectively, so that a National Commission forum is always available. The anomaly therefore concerns only pre-2019 cases.

Drawing on Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002 INSC 289), and the High Court decisions in Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar (Calcutta) and Anil Agarwal v. Suresh Chand Tiwari (Rajasthan), the Court invoked the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, citing the principle that “if a man has a right he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it.” Applying a purposive interpretation, the Bench laid down:

“[A]ny case pending prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, shall be dealt with, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, only in terms of the 1998 Gazette Notification, which omitted the upper pecuniary limit of Rupees thirty lakhs… for all such pending cases, the upper pecuniary limit shall be unlimited.”

The Court noted that the Commission had been following the position of no upper limit for years, and held that this was the correct position of law. All cases above Rs. 50 lakh that had been dismissed or not entertained on the pecuniary ground were quashed and to be re-adjudicated on merits.

Allowing both the appeal and the writ petition, the Bench remanded the matter to the State Commission, directing the parties to appear on 11.11.2026 and the proceedings to resume from the stage at which they had been closed. A copy of the order is to be placed on the file of each affected case.

Appearances:

For the Appellant (FAO(D) 20/2026): Mr. Irfan Rasool Wani, Advocate.

For the Petitioner (WP(C) 2098/2026): Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. N.A. Dendru, Advocate.

Case Title: Tabeen Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., FAO(D) 20/2026 & WP(C) 2098/2026

[Read Judgment]