Consumer Complaint After 2 Years - citizen guide 2026

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.

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:

1. A District, State or National Consumer Commission ordinarily cannot admit a complaint filed more than two years after the cause of action arose.
2. A Commission may entertain a later complaint if the complainant satisfies it that sufficient cause prevented filing within that period.
3. If delay is condoned, the Commission must record its reasons.

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:

• In Bharati Bhattacharjee v Quazi Md. Maksuduzzaman, Civil Appeal Nos. 2382-2383 of 2022, the Court said there is no single formula for deciding when a consumer cause of action accrued. It held on those property-sale facts that the cause arose after the seller failed to execute the conveyance despite notice.
• In Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board v Hiralal Chanda, Civil Appeal Nos. 7651-7652 of 2021, a later policy decision did not revive an old cancellation. The Court treated consumer limitation as a legislative mandate.
• In Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 768, later claim letters and legal notices did not rescue a complaint when the Court found that the cause had arisen years earlier.
• In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 776, the insured had made its claim promptly and the insurer itself caused prolonged processing delay. The Court refused to let that supplier-caused delay prejudice the consumer on those 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.

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:

1. What act, refusal or failure is the complaint actually challenging?
2. On what date did all facts necessary for that grievance exist?
3. Did a contract prescribe a date for delivery, repair, refund or another performance?
4. Was there a clear written rejection, cancellation or claim decision?
5. Are you relying on later discovery of a problem? If so, what record proves when it was discovered and why it was not reasonably known earlier?
6. Are you alleging a continuing wrong, or only continuing financial effects from an old completed act? Do not treat those as the same without legal support.

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:

1. Index of documents.
2. Filing proforma required by the portal or Commission.
3. Short synopsis and a dated chronology.
4. Memo of parties with current addresses.
5. Main consumer complaint and its affidavit.
6. Application under Section 69(2) for condonation of delay.
7. Evidence supporting both the consumer dispute and the delay explanation.
8. Any additional document required by the current e-Jagriti help screen or the registry.

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.

1. Provider first, if time permits: Ask for a written decision and preserve delivery proof. If the two-year date is close, do not postpone filing merely to complete another informal exchange.
2. National Consumer Helpline: NCH is an official pre-litigation grievance route. It can generate a docket and forward the grievance, but it does not guarantee a remedy.
3. Consumer Commission: File the complaint on e-Jagriti with the limitation material. Use our current e-Jagriti filing guide for ordinary portal, document and Commission-selection steps.
4. Registry correction: If a filing is returned for a defect, correct the stated defect promptly and keep the return and resubmission record.
5. Judicial decision on limitation: If the Commission refuses condonation or dismisses the complaint as time-barred, obtain advice on the correct remedy and its separate deadline. Do not copy an appeal period from an unrelated case.

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.

1. Using the last reminder as the starting date without analysing the original refusal: Section 69(1) runs from the cause of action, not whichever correspondence date is most convenient.
2. Leaving months unexplained: Section 69(2) requires sufficient cause for not filing within time. A chronology with unexplained gaps makes that request harder to assess.
3. Giving conclusions instead of evidence: “I was unable to file” does not show when, why or for how long. Connect each material statement to an annexure under Section 69(2).
4. Waiting for an NCH result near the deadline: NCH describes itself as pre-litigation. It does not state that its docket suspends Section 69.
5. Filing the complaint but omitting the condonation request: The e-Jagriti limitation flow specifically sends an out-of-time complaint to an application for condonation of delay.
6. Mixing complaint and appeal limitation: Section 69 concerns admission of an original complaint. Appeals use different statutory provisions and clocks.
7. Calling an old loss a continuing wrong without legal support: The Rajasthan Housing Board and Kandimalla decisions show that later events do not automatically revive an already completed cause.
8. Using RTI as a substitute for the consumer case: The RTI Act gives access to records held by or under the control of a public authority. It does not decide the consumer dispute or extend Section 69.

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.

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.

• Official e-Gazette: Consumer Protection Act, 2019, especially Section 69
• e-Jagriti: official Consumer Complaint workflow, dated 9 April 2025
• e-Jagriti help documents
• National Consumer Helpline: official portal explanation
• Supreme Court: Bharati Bhattacharjee v Quazi Md. Maksuduzzaman, 23 March 2022
• Supreme Court: Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board v Hiralal Chanda, 11 December 2021
• Supreme Court: Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Supreme Court: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.
• Department of Personnel and Training: RTI Act, 2005