Two years under Section 69 is the normal filing limit for a consumer complaint, but crossing it does not automatically end every case. File the complaint with a reasoned condonation application, explain the entire delay through a dated evidence trail, and let the Consumer Commission decide whether you had sufficient cause.
Decision flow
| What your chronology shows | What to submit | Evidence priority | Immediate action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clearly within two years of the cause of action | Regular consumer complaint | Proof of the event that completed the cause of action | File without waiting for informal talks |
| The starting date is genuinely disputed | Complaint plus a clear limitation note | Contract, refusal, cancellation, claim and dated correspondence | State the competing dates honestly |
| Clearly beyond two years | Complaint plus an application for condonation of delay | Proof for every material period of delay | File promptly and explain the exact delay |
| You are challenging a Consumer Commission order | This guide does not apply to the appeal clock | Order copy and date of receipt | Check the separate appeal provision immediately |
① Identify the cause of action → ② place every event by date → ③ calculate the ordinary two-year period → ④ decide whether condonation is needed → ⑤ file the evidence with the complaint
Condonation of delay is a request asking a Consumer Commission to entertain an original complaint filed beyond the ordinary two-year period. Section 69(2) does not make admission automatic. The complainant must show sufficient cause, and the Commission must record its reasons if it condones the delay.
This guide concerns a late original consumer complaint under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It does not calculate the different deadlines for an appeal, revision, review or execution application.
Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in the official e-Gazette has three working rules:
The words cause of action do not mean that every dispute starts on the purchase date. They refer to the material facts that give a consumer the right to seek relief. The correct starting date depends on the contract, the alleged defect or deficiency, what the seller or provider did, and when the relevant refusal or failure became complete.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against choosing a convenient date without examining the facts:
These judgments interpreted Section 24A of the earlier 1986 Act. Its two-year and sufficient-cause language is substantially repeated in Section 69 of the 2019 Act. The result in your case will still depend on your own facts and the current law.
Do not begin with a vague statement such as “personal difficulty caused the delay”. Build a chronology first. Your explanation should be capable of being checked against documents.
| Evidence | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| Order form, invoice, agreement or policy | The transaction, parties and promised service |
| Delivery, installation or service record | When performance occurred and when a problem appeared |
| Written rejection, cancellation, repudiation or closure | A possible date when the dispute became complete |
| Complaint acknowledgement and docket history | What you raised and when the provider or authority handled it |
| Email, letter, chat export and postal proof | The actual sequence, not a reconstructed memory |
| Medical, travel, disability or other records relevant to your stated reason | Whether the claimed inability and dates are supported |
| Portal error screenshot with timestamp and support ticket | Whether a claimed technical obstacle existed |
| One-page list of dates and events | The exact period said to be within time and the exact delay, if any |
Keep the originals safely. Upload readable copies, number each annexure, and make the same date description appear in the complaint, synopsis and condonation request. If two documents conflict, disclose the conflict and explain it rather than hiding it.
Ask these questions in order:
Repeated reminders, a fresh legal notice or an unresolved National Consumer Helpline docket do not automatically create a new cause of action. The Supreme Court decisions above show why the underlying facts matter more than the date of the last letter.
Do not convert two years into an approximate number of days and guess around a leap year. Put the proposed starting date and filing date in a calendar, state your calculation, and obtain legal help if a single day may decide admission.
The current official e-Jagriti Consumer Complaint workflow lists an index, filing proforma, synopsis with dates and events, memo of parties, complaint with a notarised affidavit, annexures and other applications. Its limitation branch directs a complaint outside two years to an application for condonation of delay.
Prepare the pack in this order:
Follow the current portal instructions when you upload. The e-Jagriti workflow establishes that a condonation application is required on its late-filing branch, but it does not create one guaranteed wording for every case. A Commission may seek a correction or further proof.
Important: Neither Section 69 nor the NCH portal says that an NCH grievance pauses the consumer-complaint limitation clock. Treat the clock as continuing unless a competent court or qualified adviser confirms otherwise for your facts.
This is a fictional example for calculation only. It is not a reported case or a prediction of success.
Meera receives a written warranty-repair refusal on 10 May 2023. After reviewing her records, she provisionally identifies that refusal as the date her cause of action became complete. On that provisional approach, she marks 10 May 2025 as the two-year point, subject to the applicable computation rules. She files on 20 June 2025, which is 41 days after that anniversary.
Meera does not write only “medical reasons”. She lists each date, attaches records covering the period she says prevented filing, explains what she did once the obstacle ended, and identifies the annexure supporting every statement. She also discloses the earlier defect and service dates so the Commission can decide whether 10 May 2023 is the correct starting point.
The Commission may accept or reject her proposed cause-of-action date and her explanation. The lesson is the method: disclose the full chronology, calculate openly, attach proof and never present condonation as guaranteed.
Use this only as a drafting aid. Replace every bracketed field with truthful facts, remove lines that do not apply, and check the Commission's current filing directions.
BEFORE THE [NAME OF CONSUMER COMMISSION] Consumer Complaint No. [leave blank if not allotted] [Complainant] versus [Opposite party] APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 69(2) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. The accompanying complaint concerns [briefly state the goods, service and relief sought]. 2. The complainant states that the cause of action arose on [date] because [state the material act, refusal or failure]. Annexure [number] supports this statement. 3. On that calculation, the ordinary two-year period ended on [date]. The complaint is filed on [date]. The delay calculated by the complainant is [number] days. 4. The complaint could not be filed within that period because [give the complete, dated and truthful explanation]. 5. The documents supporting this explanation are Annexures [numbers]. A date-wise table is attached. 6. The complainant acted on [dates] after the stated obstacle ended. [Explain any remaining interval rather than leaving a gap.] PRAYER The complainant respectfully asks the Commission to consider the facts and documents, condone the delay under Section 69(2), and entertain the accompanying complaint. The complainant understands that condonation is for the Commission to decide. Place: Date: Signature of complainant or authorised representative VERIFICATION I verify that the facts stated above are true to my knowledge and that the attached copies are true copies of the records relied upon.
The official workflow separately lists a complaint with notarised affidavit. Check whether the registry also requires an affidavit supporting the condonation application. Do not notarise an incomplete draft or sign a statement you cannot prove.
Do not send an RTI application directly to an ordinary private seller merely because the seller rejected your complaint. Sections 2(f), 2(h) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 centre the right on information held by or accessible through a public authority.
RTI may help when a government department, regulator or other public authority holds relevant records. Ask for existing records, such as the diary entry for your representation, the action-taken note, an inspection record, the applicable circular, or a certified copy of an administrative order. Do not ask the PIO to decide whether your consumer complaint is within limitation.
Use the AI RTI Drafter to frame a record-specific request. Track the statutory response using the Timeline Tracker, and test a reply with the PIO Reply Checker. If the reply is deficient, the First Appeal Builder can help structure the RTI appeal. Read The RTI Playbook for the complete evidence-first method.
An RTI application is an evidence tool, not a pause button. Continue protecting the consumer-complaint deadline while seeking records.
Downloadable checklist: Use your browser's Print option and choose Save as PDF. Save this section with your case folder before filing.
Not in every case. Section 69(1) creates the ordinary two-year limit. Section 69(2) allows a Commission to entertain a later complaint if sufficient cause is shown, but the Commission must record its reasons. A condonation request is not an assurance of admission.
The period runs from the date on which the cause of action arose. That date depends on the facts creating the right to complain. It may involve a contractual due date, refusal, cancellation, repudiation, defect or deficiency, but no single event fits every dispute.
Not automatically. In Kandimalla Raghavaiah, later letters and legal notices did not rescue a claim where the Court found that the cause had arisen much earlier. A notice can be important evidence, but its effect depends on the underlying facts.
Do not assume so. NCH officially describes itself as a pre-litigation grievance mechanism. Section 69 does not provide an automatic pause merely because an NCH docket is open. If the deadline is close, protect the Commission filing first.
The Act does not give a guaranteed list. The Commission assesses the explanation and evidence in the particular case. State the whole delay honestly, attach dated proof and avoid claiming that any one circumstance must be accepted.
The current official Consumer Complaint workflow routes a filing outside two years to an application for condonation of delay. Upload it with the complaint and follow any current help-screen or registry directions for document labels and additional material.
The current e-Jagriti workflow lists the consumer complaint with a notarised affidavit among its mandatory documents. Check whether your Commission also requires a separate affidavit for the condonation application, and use only verified facts.
Ordinarily, RTI is addressed to a public authority, not directly to a private seller. It can cover private-body information only where a public authority can access that information under another law. Ask the relevant public authority for records it holds or can lawfully access.
This guide provides general legal information, not advice on a particular dispute. When the filing date, cause of action or appeal route is contested, consider obtaining advice from a qualified lawyer or an eligible legal-services institution without delaying the filing.