Why complaint over a Rs 2-crore Maserati did not qualify to be taken up by national consumer body: NCDRC ruling explained

“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,” said the national consumer body on March 20.

Luxury car purchase turns contentious

• The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Nurture Work Space Solutions India LLP against Bagga Luxury Motorcars LLP, VST Avventura Pvt Ltd, and Italian manufacturer Maserati SpA, alleging defects in a high-end vehicle and deficiency in service.
• The complainant had purchased the luxury vehicle at an ex-showroom price of Rs 1.85 crore. Beyond this, the buyer incurred substantial additional costs, including Rs 3.38 lakh towards insurance premium, Rs 37.94 lakh towards road tax and registration, Rs 5.90 lakh for a premium registration number “9999” and Rs 50,000 as consultancy charges.
• Cumulatively, the on-road cost crossed Rs 2 crore, which the complainant argued brought the dispute within the NCDRC’s pecuniary jurisdiction, which refers to the court’s authority to hear a matter based on the monetary value involved.

The national consumer commission drew a sharp legal distinction between contractual payments and statutory obligations.

‘Expanded’ interpretation rejected

• The national consumer commission drew a sharp legal distinction between contractual payments and statutory obligations.
• It emphasised that the ex-showroom price represents the negotiated and agreed consideration between buyer and seller.
• 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 in 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 government.
• Taxes and registration fees are compulsory payments to the state, deposited into the government exchequer.
• Such statutory payments cannot be equated with consideration paid for goods or services under the Consumer Protection Act.

Proceedings before commission

• During the hearing, the commission had specifically asked the complainant’s counsel to address the legal position on how “consideration” should be computed under the 2019 Act, particularly in light of evolving jurisprudence.
• An earlier order dated February 19, 2026, had directed counsel to assist the bench with judgments, including the national consumer commission’s ruling in Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt Ltd v National Insurance Co Ltd (2020) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rutu Mihir Panchal v Union of India (2025).
• When the matter was taken up again on February 27, the complainant’s counsel argued that registration and road tax are integral to making a vehicle legally usable, and therefore should be treated as part of the overall consideration.

Statutory interpretation under 2019 Act

• The commission underscored that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 marked a deliberate shift from the earlier 1986 law.
• Under the 2019 framework, jurisdiction is determined only by the value of consideration paid.
• Claims for compensation or total transaction value are irrelevant for this purpose.
• Reaffirming its earlier ruling in the Pyaridevi case, the Commission noted that Parliament consciously narrowed the basis of jurisdiction to avoid ambiguity and forum shopping.
• The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in the Rutu Mihir Panchal case, which upheld the validity of this legislative shift and rejected challenges to the revised pecuniary limits.

Arguments advanced by complainant

The complainant sought to build a layered argument:

• Statutory necessity: Citing Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was argued that a vehicle cannot be driven without registration, making such payments inseparable from the purchase.
• Dealer collection model: It was contended that these charges are often collected by the dealer as part of the transaction, forming part of the “on-road price.”
• Tax law analogy: Reliance was placed on advance rulings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (VAT) Act to argue that such components are treated as part of the sale price in certain fiscal contexts.
• Ownership linkage: The complainant also argued that ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act is tied to registration, reinforcing the idea that registration charges are intrinsic to the transaction.

On this basis, the complainant urged the commission to adopt a broader interpretation of “consideration” and assume jurisdiction.

Findings on facts

• Applying the legal position to the present case, the commission found the actual consideration paid to the seller was Rs 1.85 crore.
• This amount falls below the Rs 2 crore threshold required for the national consumer commission jurisdiction.
• Inclusion of Rs 37.94 lakh as road tax and registration would be legally impermissible.
• Accordingly, the complaint was held to be not maintainable before the national consumer commission.

Liberty to approach appropriate forum

While dismissing the complaint, the commission clarified that the complainant is free to approach the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for adjudication of its claims regarding alleged defects and deficiency in service.