What if the dealer is in another state — can you still file a consumer complaint in your own city?
Yes — and this is one of the most powerful provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for numismatic collectors. Section 34(2) provides that a complaint can be filed in the consumer forum where the cause of action arose OR where the complainant resides or personally works for gain. This means a collector in Chandigarh can file against a dealer in Mumbai at the Chandigarh District Consumer Forum — the dealer must either appear or face an ex parte order. Jeevandeep Singh (2024) confirmed this principle directly.
Section 34(2) — the complainant's location choice
The Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 34(2) provides: 'A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction — (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Commission is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.'
The key addition from the old CPA is Section 34(2)(c): the cause of action can arise in the complainant's location. When a collector in Chandigarh pays a dealer in Mumbai via UPI, the cause of action — the payment — arose in Chandigarh. When the dealer failed to deliver, the harm — non-delivery — was experienced in Chandigarh. The Chandigarh forum has jurisdiction.
Judicial Authority Jeevandeep Singh v. Bombay Coins & Stamps · District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana · CC/21/531, 8 November 2024 The complainant paid ₹56,482 by NEFT from Ludhiana to Bombay Coins & Stamps. The opposite party argued the forum at Ludhiana lacked jurisdiction. The Commission confirmed jurisdiction: under CPA 2019 §34(2)(c), the cause of action includes where the payment was made and where the harm of non-delivery was experienced — which was Ludhiana. Geographic jurisdiction follows the complainant. |
Why this matters practically for collectors
Under the old Consumer Protection Act 1986, a buyer in Chandigarh dealing with a dealer in Mumbai often had to file in Mumbai — a practical impossibility for small claims. The CPA 2019 Section 34(2)(c) change transformed this. Any collector in any city in India can now file against any Indian dealer in their own local consumer forum, regardless of where the dealer operates. This makes consumer forum complaints practical for online numismatic transactions — the most common form of collector-dealer dispute.
Laws & authorities referenced in this chapter
Consumer Protection Act 2019 — §34(2)(c) (jurisdiction where cause of action wholly or partly arises)
Jeevandeep Singh v. Bombay Coins & Stamps — Ludhiana District Forum, CC/21/531, 2024 — jurisdiction confirmed at complainant's location
CPA 2019 §34(2)(c): complainant can file in their OWN city where cause of action arose. Payment from your city = cause of action in your city. Non-delivery experienced in your city = cause of action in your city. Jeevandeep (2024) confirmed: Ludhiana collector files against Mumbai dealer at Ludhiana forum. Practical significance: any Indian collector can sue any Indian dealer at their local forum. The dealer must appear or face ex parte order.
This is educational content, not legal advice. For a specific situation, please consult a qualified legal professional. Excerpted from Currency, Coins & The Law by Mayank Agarwal, Part 15: Dealer Disputes — Fake Items, Escalation, Identity & the Full Remedies Framework.