Consumer complaints: which commission hears yours, and how

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the Act of 1986 and restructured the redressal machinery, creating a three-tier system of District, State and National Commissions along with a central regulator and provisions on mediation, product liability and unfair contract terms.

Before any question about which tier hears a complaint, there is a prior question that decides whether the machinery is available at all: whether the complainant is a consumer within the Act's definition. A consumer is a person who buys goods or hires services for consideration, and the definition expressly excludes a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

That exclusion matters directly to a business audience and is frequently overlooked. Purchases made for the purposes of a trade are generally outside the Act. The definition carries an explanation to the effect that “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used exclusively for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment, which is why the position of a small trader or a self-employed person is not simply excluded but depends on the facts of the use.

Whether a particular purchase falls inside or outside is therefore a factual question that has generated a substantial body of case law. This article explains the structure and the process; it does not assess any particular complaint, which turns on its own facts.

Complaints are allocated between the District, State and National Commissions by pecuniary jurisdiction, and this is the part of the subject most likely to be reported out of date — including by sources that were correct when written.

The 2019 Act as enacted set the limits at up to one crore rupees for the District Commission, above one crore and up to ten crore for the State Commission, and above ten crore for the National Commission.

Those figures were then revised. The Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, notified in December 2021, reduced them substantially: up to fifty lakh rupees for the District Commission, above fifty lakh and up to two crore for the State Commission, and above two crore for the National Commission.

The 2021 Rules also changed the basis of the calculation, which is at least as significant as the reduction. Jurisdiction is determined by the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, rather than by that value taken together with the compensation claimed. So inflating a compensation claim no longer moves a complaint up a tier.

Because both the amounts and the basis have been altered by subordinate legislation once already, they can be altered again. The Rules in force on the date of filing govern, and the tier decides where a complaint must go — so this is a figure to verify against the current notification rather than to take from any article.

Territorial jurisdiction is separate from pecuniary jurisdiction, and the 2019 Act made a change here that materially improved the position of individual complainants.

Under the earlier regime, a complaint generally had to be filed where the opposite party resided or carried on business, or where the cause of action arose. The practical effect was that a consumer dealing with a company headquartered in another state could face proceedings a long way from home.

The 2019 Act provides for a complaint to be instituted in the District Commission within whose jurisdiction the complainant resides or personally works for gain, in addition to the bases relating to the opposite party and the cause of action. For distance selling and online purchases, that is a substantial difference.

The Act also contemplates filing electronically, which is what the e-Daakhil portal implements, and provides for hearings to be conducted by video conferencing.

One consequence worth noting is that the two jurisdictions have to be satisfied together. A complaint has to be filed in the right tier by value and in a Commission that has territorial jurisdiction, and a filing that satisfies one and not the other is liable to be returned — which costs time that may matter, given the limitation period described below. The Commission's own registry is the practical source for how it applies these rules.

e-Daakhil is the government's online filing portal for consumer complaints, and it allows a complaint to be filed, fees paid and documents uploaded without a physical visit to the Commission.

The sequence is registration on the portal, then filing a complaint with the details of the parties, the facts, the relief sought and the value, followed by payment of the prescribed fee and upload of supporting documents. Fees are prescribed and are scaled by the value of the claim, and they are modest by the standards of civil litigation, which is part of the design of the jurisdiction.

On documents, the general principle is that the complaint must be able to establish three things from its own record: that the complainant is a consumer in relation to the goods or services, what the defect in the goods or deficiency in the service was, and what loss followed.

What that translates to in practice is the transaction record — invoice, receipt, order confirmation, proof of payment; the terms, including any warranty, guarantee card, policy document or terms of service; the correspondence, which is often the most valuable material because it evidences what was reported, when, and what response was given; and evidence of the defect or deficiency itself.

A complaint is generally supported by an affidavit, and the Rules prescribe the form. The portal's own instructions and the Commission's registry are the authority on current formats and fees.

The Act provides that a complaint is to be admitted within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. This is the provision most likely to defeat an otherwise good complaint, and the reason is that the two years runs from the cause of action rather than from the date someone gave up on getting a resolution.

The Act also provides that a complaint may be entertained after that period if the complainant satisfies the Commission that there was sufficient cause for not filing within it, and requires the Commission to record its reasons for condoning the delay. That is a discretion to be exercised on cause shown, not an extension available on request.

Appeal periods are separate, are shorter, and differ between the tiers. An appeal from a District Commission order lies to the State Commission within the period the Act prescribes, commonly stated as forty-five days, and appeals from the State Commission to the National Commission and from the National Commission to the Supreme Court have their own prescribed periods, with provision for condonation of delay on sufficient cause. Because these periods differ by tier and are set by statute that has been amended, the Act's own text is the source rather than a summary.

The general point is that every stage of this process is time-bound, and that the clock on the first stage often starts earlier than a complainant assumes.

Two features of the jurisdiction are worth knowing because they affect how a complaint actually proceeds.

The 2019 Act introduced a statutory mediation framework, with mediation cells attached to the Commissions. A Commission may refer a dispute to mediation at an early stage where the parties consent, and a settlement arrived at is recorded. Mediation is not available for every category of dispute, and the Rules address the exclusions. For a complaint where the outcome sought is a refund, a replacement or a repair rather than a finding, this route can resolve matters considerably faster than adjudication.

On representation: the jurisdiction was designed to be accessible without a lawyer, and a complainant may appear in person. Whether that is sufficient depends less on the amount at stake than on what is contested. Where the facts are documented and the deficiency is plain, the proceedings are largely a matter of putting a clear record in front of the Commission. Where the opposite party contests whether the complainant is a consumer at all, or raises limitation, or where the dispute involves expert evidence about a defect, the questions become genuinely legal and evidential.

And the boundary of an article like this: it can describe the tiers, the basis of jurisdiction, the portal, the documents and the time limits as at the date of writing. It cannot assess a complaint, and it is not advice on one.