With reference to the Consumer Disputes Redressal at district level in India, which one of the following statements is not correct?

1. The question asks which statement regarding Consumer Disputes Redressal at the district level in India (under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, relevant at the time) is *not* correct. 2. Statement (A): A State Government can establish more than one District Forum in a district if it deems fit. Section 9(a) of the CPA 1986 allowed the State Government to establish one or more District Forums in each district. This statement is correct. 3. Statement (B): One of the members of the District Forum shall be a woman. Section 10(1)(b) stipulated that the District Forum shall consist of members, one of whom shall be a woman. This statement is correct. 4. Statement (C): The District Forum entertains complaints where the value of goods or services does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs. Under the CPA 1986, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was initially up to ₹1 lakh, later increased, but at the time of the act's main relevance before the 2019 update, it was up to ₹20 lakhs. The limit of ₹50 lakhs came much later with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (and was subsequently revised again). Therefore, this statement with the ₹50 lakh limit (in the context of the likely period the question refers to) is *not* correct. 5. Statement (D): A complaint...may be filed with a District Forum by the State Government as a representative... Section 12 allowed complaints to be filed by consumers, recognized consumer associations, Central or State Government, etc. This statement is correct. 6. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, and the pecuniary limit mentioned in (C) was incorrect for the relevant period of the CPA 1986, option C is the answer.