UPSC Prelims 2010 Q102: Indian Polity – Constitutional & Statutory Bodies
- (a) A State Government can establish more than one District Forum in a district if it deems fit
- (b) One of the members of the District Forum shall be a woman
- (c) The District Forum entertains the complaints where the value of goods or services does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs
- (d) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or any service provided may be filed with a District Forum by the State Government as a representative of the interests of the consumers in general
Answer: (c) The District Forum entertains the complaints where the value of goods or services does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs
Explanation
District Consumer Forum: finding the incorrect statement
The Consumer Protection Act established a three-tier redressal system, with specific district-level rules.
| Option | Verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| (a) State Govt can establish more than one District Forum if it deems fit | Is correct | States can set up multiple District Forums within a district as needed |
| (b) One member of the District Forum shall be a woman | Is correct | The law mandates that one of the District Forum's members be a woman |
| (c) District Forum handles complaints where goods/services value doesn't exceed fifty lakhs | NOT correct | At the time, the District Forum's pecuniary jurisdiction was capped at twenty lakh rupees, not fifty lakhs — this overstates the actual limit |
| (d) A complaint may be filed by the State Government as representative of consumers generally | Is correct | The law does allow the State Government to file complaints representing the general interest of consumers |
District Forum facts (at the time):
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Pecuniary jurisdiction | Up to ₹20 lakh (not fifty lakh) |
| Composition rule | Must include one woman member |
| Multiple forums | Permitted per district if needed |
Answer: (c) The District Forum entertains the complaints where the value of goods or services does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs.
Why each option is right or wrong
- (a) Incorrect. This statement is true: states can establish multiple District Forums, so it's not the answer to this 'not correct' question.
- (b) Incorrect. This statement is true: a woman member is mandatory, so it's not the answer.
- (c) CORRECT. The actual pecuniary limit at the time was twenty lakh rupees, not fifty lakhs as stated.
- (d) Incorrect. This statement is true: the State Government can file such representative complaints, so it's not the answer.
Key point
The District Forum's pecuniary jurisdiction limit at the time was TWENTY LAKH RUPEES, not fifty lakhs — the other three statements about District Forum rules are accurate.
Remember
District Consumer Forum: pecuniary jurisdiction was ₹20 lakh, not ₹50 lakh as this statement claims.
Common mistakes
- Overstating the pecuniary jurisdiction limit, confusing it with later-revised or higher-tier limits.
- Missing the question's framing: it asks for the NOT correct statement among several true ones.
- Not knowing the mandatory woman-member requirement for District Forums.
Exam tip
District Forum's pecuniary limit (at the time) = ₹20 lakh, not ₹50 lakh. A specific numeric trap to watch for.
Sources
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11 (jurisdiction of the District Forum)
- Consumer Protection Rules, 1987