JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) successfully represented Sanathnagar Enterprises Limited before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, which set aside an order passed by the District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, on the grounds of failure to correctly apply principles of pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
By an order dated April 17, 2026, the State Commission allowed a revision petition filed by M/s Sanathnagar Enterprises Limited and set aside the order dated September 04, 2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, which had dismissed an application seeking rejection of the complaint on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation. The revision petition was filed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the State Commission.
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the Respondents/Complainants seeking refund of alleged excess consideration paid for a flat. The complainants contended that although the flat was marketed based on a saleable area of 1818 sq. ft., the sale deed reflected a carpet area of 1386 sq. ft., which discrepancy came to light on March 30, 2023, during transfer of their home loan from SBI to PNB.
The Petitioner contended that (i) the total consideration paid for the flat was ₹72,78,386, exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission (₹50 lakhs); and (ii) the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 2017–2018, whereas the complaint was filed in 2025. The District Commission rejected these objections, holding that jurisdiction would be determined based on the compensation claimed (₹47 lakhs) and it is within the jurisdiction as per Sec.34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The State Commission, reversing the order of the District Commission, held as follows:
- The records establish that the total consideration paid for the flat was ₹72,78,386, calculated on a gross area of 1818 sq. ft., whereas the sale deed correctly reflects the carpet area of 1386 sq. ft. after permissible variation.
- Relying on Ritu Mihir Panchel vs. Union of India (2025), it was held that pecuniary jurisdiction must be determined based on the value of consideration paid and not the compensation claimed.
- Accordingly, the District Commission lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the consideration exceeded ₹50 lakhs.
- Further, the complaint filed in 2025 is beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The plea of discovery in 2023 is not supported by the record, which clearly disclosed the carpet area at the relevant time.
- The District Commission erred in deferring the issue of limitation despite the admitted delay of several years.
- While deciding an application for rejection of the complaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission failed to apply the settled principle that issues of jurisdiction and limitation must be determined on the basis of the pleadings, and instead erroneously deferred these issues for trial.
In view of the above, the State Commission allowed the revision petition and set aside the Impugned Order, holding that the complaint was not maintainable on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation.
The State Commission has reaffirmed that pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation grounds must be determined on the basis of the pleadings, instead of being erroneously deferred for trial.
The JSA team was led by Harshavardhan Abburi, Partner; with support from Poojitha Babbepalli, Principal Associate, Manoj Bhukya, Associate; Phanindranath Chowdary Ponneganti, Associate and Pooja Gandhi, Associate.
Harsha has worked extensively in Litigation and Corporate Commercial matters. He has appeared and advised on various Forums including High Court, NCLT, Civil Courts, Consumer Commissions, etc.