By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 15 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
Clients usually come in already certain about one thing, that they were cheated, and uncertain about everything else: which commission to approach, whether they have missed their chance, and what proof they actually need to carry. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the 1986 Act with a somewhat different structure, and a complaint filed in the wrong forum or outside the limitation period rarely survives on sympathy alone.
This guide sets out how pecuniary jurisdiction is actually worked out after the 2021 revision, what the two year limitation period really covers, and where a pending Supreme Court challenge to the current jurisdictional split could change things for complainants with high value, low defect claims.
Which commission has jurisdiction over your claim
Under the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, the District Commission handles complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. The State Commission takes complaints above that figure and up to two crore rupees, and the National Commission handles anything above two crore rupees. This replaced the earlier 1986 Act scheme, which had set the National Commission's threshold at above ten crore rupees, a change the government justified on the basis that the old split was overloading district commissions while leaving the higher tiers comparatively underused.
The important point many complainants get wrong is that jurisdiction turns on the value of the goods or services actually paid for, not on the amount of compensation being claimed. A buyer who paid twenty lakh rupees for an item and is now claiming two crore rupees in damages for the defect still files at the District Commission, because the consideration paid, not the relief sought, decides the forum. This has produced genuine anomalies, and the Supreme Court is currently examining a challenge in Avon Elastomers v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, where the petitioner pointed to a two and a half crore rupee car with a complaint limited to a defective windscreen, a case that would have to go to the National Commission purely because of the vehicle's price even though the actual dispute is comparatively minor. Until that challenge is decided, the consideration-value test remains the operative rule, and getting it wrong at the filing stage means refiling in the correct forum and losing time.
Territorial jurisdiction follows ordinary principles: a complaint can be filed where the opposite party resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arose in whole or part, giving most complainants a genuine choice of location where the transaction and the seller's branch are in different cities.
The two year limitation clock and how it actually runs
Section 69 of the 2019 Act bars a commission from admitting a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose. The clock typically starts running from the point the deficiency in service or defect in goods becomes apparent, or from a specific triggering event such as a repudiation of an insurance claim, delivery of a defective product, or the date possession was promised and denied, rather than from the original date of purchase or booking in every case.
A recurring mistake is assuming that writing repeated letters to the seller or insurer after a claim is rejected somehow extends the two year window. It does not. Consumer fora have held that prolonged correspondence following a rejection does not push back the limitation period, because the cause of action is fixed at the date of repudiation itself, not at the date the complainant finally gives up negotiating and decides to litigate. Equally, discovering a defect late does not automatically restart the clock either, since at least one reported decision has treated the limitation period as running from when the defect or injury actually occurred, describing a late-discovery argument as an excuse rather than a basis for recalculating when the cause of action arose.
Where a complaint genuinely cannot be filed in time, Section 69(2) allows the commission to admit it anyway if the complainant satisfies the commission that there was sufficient cause for the delay, but this needs a formal application explaining the delay, filed along with the complaint, and the commission must record its reasons for condoning it. Fora have dismissed complaints outright where no condonation application accompanied a late filing, treating the omission as fatal rather than a mere formality to be cured later.
Who can actually be sued, and for what
The 2019 Act widened the net of who can be proceeded against compared to its predecessor, now expressly covering product liability actions against a manufacturer, product seller or product service provider where a defective product or deficient service causes harm, alongside the familiar deficiency in service claims against a seller or service provider directly. For a manufacturing defect, a complainant can usually choose to proceed against the manufacturer, the dealer who sold the product, or both, since liability is not confined to whoever happened to physically hand over the goods.
E-commerce transactions bring in a separate layer of rules under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which fix certain disclosure and grievance redressal obligations directly on marketplace entities as well as the seller listed on the platform, which matters when deciding whom to name as opposite parties in an online purchase dispute.
Complaints should be drafted around the specific relief actually available under Section 39 of the Act, which include replacement, refund with interest, compensation for loss or injury, and removal of the defect, rather than a generic prayer for damages, since commissions tend to grant relief in the terms actually pleaded and proved.
What documents actually make or break the complaint
A consumer complaint rises or falls on paper trail more than on argument. The invoice or receipt showing the price paid is the single document that decides which commission has jurisdiction, so it should be the first thing pulled together, not an afterthought attached just before filing. Alongside it, keep the warranty card, any service or repair job sheets, and every written communication with the seller or service provider, including emails and chat transcripts, since these fix the exact dates that matter for working out when the cause of action arose.
Where the complaint concerns a defect in goods, a commission will often expect some independent evidence of the defect beyond the complainant's own account, such as a technician's report, photographs taken close to the time the defect appeared, or an expert opinion for anything technically complex like a vehicle or a major appliance. For deficiency in service claims, such as a delayed flight, a cancelled booking, or a denied insurance claim, the written rejection or the relevant policy terms carry most of the evidentiary weight, and the complaint should quote the specific clause the opposite party is accused of breaching rather than making a general allegation of poor service.
A legal notice before filing is not mandatory under the 2019 Act, but sending one, calling on the opposite party to resolve the grievance within a reasonable period, is still useful practice. It creates a clear, dated record of when the complainant first formally raised the grievance, which can matter later if limitation or delay becomes an issue, and it occasionally resolves the dispute without the need to file at all.
What happens if you file in the wrong forum
Filing in a commission that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction does not usually end the matter permanently, but it does cost real time. The typical course is that the commission returns the complaint for presentation to the correct forum, and the complainant then has to refile, by which point months may have passed. Where the delay caused by this detour pushes the refiling close to or past the two year limitation mark, the complainant will need a condonation application explaining that the original filing was made in good faith within time, which fora have generally treated sympathetically where the error was a genuine jurisdictional mistake rather than a strategic one.
Given the consideration-value trap described above, it is worth working out the actual price paid for the goods or service before deciding where to file, rather than anchoring the forum choice to the compensation figure the client wants to claim. Getting this wrong twice, once on filing and again on appeal when the jurisdictional defect is raised by the opposite party, is an avoidable way to lose a year of litigation time on a point that has nothing to do with the merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
I paid eighteen lakh rupees for a car that turned out to be defective, but I want to claim one crore rupees in compensation. Which commission do I approach?
The District Commission, because jurisdiction is decided by the value of the consideration paid, eighteen lakh rupees here, not by the compensation you are claiming. This consideration-value rule is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court as producing odd results, but it remains the operative test for now.
My insurance claim was rejected two and a half years ago, but I kept writing letters asking them to reconsider until last month. Can I still file a complaint?
Probably not without a strong condonation application. Fora have held that ongoing correspondence after a rejection does not extend the two year limitation period, which runs from the date of repudiation. You would need to show sufficient cause for the entire delay, not just rely on the recent correspondence.
Can I sue the manufacturer directly, or do I have to go through the shop where I bought the product?
You can generally proceed against the manufacturer, the seller, or both, since the 2019 Act's product liability provisions extend liability for a defective product beyond whoever physically sold it to you. Naming both as opposite parties is usually the safer approach where you are unsure which of them is actually responsible for the defect.
I filed my complaint in the State Commission but it turns out the value falls within the District Commission's limit. Have I lost my case?
Not necessarily. The commission will typically return the complaint for filing in the correct forum. You will need to refile promptly and may need a condonation application if the detour pushes you close to the two year limitation mark, but a genuine jurisdictional mistake is usually treated more leniently than other delays.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sections 39 and 69
- Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021
- Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020
- Avon Elastomers v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (pending before the Supreme Court)
- Rawal Acids Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal No. 218 of 2024