The Consumer Protection Act 2019 sets a clear limitation period for filing complaints: two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Section 69 is the provision you need to know, and ignoring it has derailed many otherwise valid consumer claims.
I have seen genuinely wronged consumers arrive at my chamber with a strong case — and an eight-month-old refusal from the consumer forum because their complaint was time-barred. The two-year limit had expired before they filed. Their consumer right existed; their remedy did not.
What Section 69 Actually Says
Section 69(1) states: The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
Section 69(2) provides the escape valve: notwithstanding subsection (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in subsection (1), if the complainant satisfies the Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
The key terms are 'cause of action' and 'sufficient cause.' Both require analysis.
When Does the Cause of Action Arise?
The cause of action is the set of facts that entitles you to file your complaint. Pinpointing exactly when it 'arose' is often the most critical legal question in limitation disputes.
For a defective product: The cause of action typically arises on the date you discovered the defect — not the date of purchase. If you purchased a product in January 2022 and the defect emerged in May 2022, your limitation clock starts in May 2022.
For service deficiency: The cause of action arises when the deficiency became apparent. If a builder promised possession by December 2021 and failed to deliver, the cause of action arose in January 2022 (the month after the missed deadline).
For insurance repudiation: The cause of action arises on the date the insurer sends the repudiation letter. Not the date of the incident, not the date you submitted your claim — the date of repudiation.
For banking fraud: The cause of action arises on the date you discovered the unauthorised transaction, or the date the bank refused to reverse it, whichever is later.
Common mistake: Calculating limitation from the date of purchase rather than the date the deficiency or cause of action arose. These can be months or years apart, and the error in your favour can be the difference between a maintainable complaint and a time-barred one.
Continuing Cause of Action
Where a wrong is ongoing — where the Opposite Party continues to cause harm or continues to refuse to perform its obligation — the cause of action is said to be a 'continuing cause of action.' In such cases, limitation runs afresh each day that the wrong continues.
This is a powerful doctrine but it is not unlimited. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that even for a continuing cause of action, the complainant must file within two years of the most recent instance of the wrong. Courts will not allow the continuing cause doctrine to be stretched indefinitely.
Classic continuing cause of action scenarios: A bank that continues to charge wrong fees every month. A builder who continues to withhold possession past the agreed date. A subscription service that continues to bill after cancellation.
Condonation of Delay — Section 69(2)
If your two years have passed, all is not necessarily lost. Section 69(2) allows the forum to condone the delay if you show 'sufficient cause.' You must file a separate application for condonation of delay along with your complaint.
What is 'sufficient cause'? Courts have interpreted this broadly: serious illness preventing you from accessing legal services; being out of the country; being a minor until recently; being in active settlement negotiations with the Opposite Party; not knowing your legal rights until recently (though ignorance of law is generally not an excuse, courts have been lenient for lay consumers).
Your condonation application must set out the facts clearly: when the cause of action arose, why you could not file in time, and what steps you took when you did decide to file. The court decides whether the explanation is genuine and the delay is justified.
Strategic note: If you were in correspondence with the Opposite Party trying to resolve the dispute, each letter or response from them can be argued to restart the limitation clock or constitute a continuing acknowledgment of liability. Document all communications for this reason.
How to Protect Yourself: File Promptly
The simplest way to avoid a limitation problem is to file your complaint as soon as it is clear the Opposite Party will not resolve the dispute. Send a legal notice first — it is good practice and often prompts settlement — but do not wait indefinitely for a response before filing.
A legal notice also serves as documented evidence of when you first asserted your claim, which is useful in limitation calculations. An advocate-drafted legal notice sent before filing your consumer complaint is not just good practice — it is protective evidence.
In your complaint, always include a specific paragraph addressing limitation: state when the cause of action arose, confirm it is within two years, and explicitly state that the complaint is within the limitation period under Section 69(1) of the Act. This pre-empts any objection the Opposite Party might raise and signals to the forum that the complaint is procedurally sound.