For a defective product, a refused refund, a service you paid for but did not get, or an online order that never arrived or arrived wrong -- the official redress path is a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, not a civil court.
e-Jagriti (Department of Consumer Affairs -- filing for District, State and National Commissions): https://e-jagriti.gov.in
Helpline: 1915 (National Consumer Helpline, 8am-8pm) -- a pre-litigation grievance channel, not a Commission filing
Handled by: Department of Consumer Affairs (District/State/National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions)
Who can use this: Any consumer who bought goods or hired services for consideration, not for commercial resale -- including e-commerce purchases. A recognised consumer association, the Central Government, the State Government, or the Central Consumer Protection Authority can also file on a consumer's behalf.
This does not cover: Business-to-business (B2B) purchases for resale/commercial use, criminal fraud (report that at cybercrime.gov.in instead), securities and share-trading disputes, which have their own SEBI mechanism (note that a deficiency-in-service complaint against a bank or an insurer can still be brought before a Consumer Commission), and disputes about who owns property. Note: a self-employed person who buys goods or avails a service exclusively to earn their own livelihood -- for example, a driver buying a vehicle or a tailor buying a sewing machine -- is NOT excluded by the 'commercial purpose' bar, under Explanation (a) to Section 2(7) of the Act. Note that Explanation (a) as enacted in 2019 refers only to goods bought and used; the corresponding provision of the earlier 1986 Act also expressly covered services availed for self-employment, and that wording was not carried forward, so the position for services is less settled.
Time limit: File within 2 years of the date the cause of action arose -- generally when the defect or deficiency occurred, or when the seller refused to put it right. A late complaint can still be entertained for sufficient cause, with reasons recorded. (Section 69, Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
Cost: No fee up to Rs.5 lakh consideration paid; a fixed slab fee above that (see FAQ below). Refundable if mediation succeeds. The National Consumer Helpline is free.
What happens after: The order is binding and enforceable like a civil court decree -- non-compliance can lead to execution proceedings, attachment of property, or imprisonment for wilful disobedience. A dissatisfied party can appeal up the three-tier structure. An appeal from the National Commission to the Supreme Court is available as of right only where the National Commission decided the case in its own original jurisdiction (Section 67); where it was acting on appeal from a State Commission, the only recourse is a discretionary Special Leave Petition under Article 136.
e-Jagriti lets you file with any Commission, but doesn't disclose whether it currently has a sitting president or is fully staffed. This covers 16 states/UTs with a real, individually sourced record -- not every state, and not a claim about your specific case.
As of 2025, the Commission had no sitting president. Member vacancy was 25% (1 of 4 sanctioned posts), down from 75% in 2021 -- the statutory minimum composition (1 president + 4 members) was met only in 2022. Case clearance was the best in the 19-state comparison (nearly 93%, 2020-2024), with only about 5% of cases pending over 3 years.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Andhra Pradesh Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had no sitting president. Member vacancy was 25% (1 of 4 sanctioned posts). 48% of cases were pending over 3 years as of 2025, though case clearance (State + District Commissions) exceeded 100% in both 2022 and 2024.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Assam Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president and all 4 sanctioned member posts filled (0% vacancy). Despite full staffing, case clearance was weak -- only 69% of cases (State + District Commissions combined) were disposed between 2020 and 2024, with an average disposal time of 965 days, about six times the statutory maximum.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Bihar Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president, but 3 of its 4 sanctioned member posts were vacant (75%). Despite this, case clearance exceeded 100% in both 2023 and 2024 (State + District Commissions combined), with fewer than 400 cases pending out of roughly 11,000 filed since 2010.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Chhattisgarh Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, with 1 of 4 sanctioned member posts vacant (25%). Case clearance exceeded 100% (State + District Commissions, 2020-2024), though in 4 of Delhi's District Commissions more than one in four cases had been pending over 3 years, and staff vacancy rose from 0% (2021) to 40% (2025) as sanctioned staff strength grew.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Delhi Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, but 3 of 8 sanctioned member posts were vacant (37.5%). Case clearance was 84% of the 74,221 cases filed between 2020 and 2024 (State + District Commissions). The Gandhinagar District Commission's own president post was reported vacant continuously from 2021 to 2025.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Gujarat Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
The Commission had no sitting president continuously from 2021 through 2025. Member vacancy was 75% (only 1 of 4 sanctioned posts filled, up from 25% in 2021). 71% of cases were pending for more than 3 years as of 2025 -- the second-highest such figure among the 19 states compared, after Kerala.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Jharkhand Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had no sitting president. Member vacancy was 88% (only 1 of 8 sanctioned posts filled). Despite this, case clearance (State + District Commissions) averaged 109% between 2020 and 2024, and only 28% of cases were pending over 3 years -- the third-lowest such figure among the 19 states compared.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Karnataka Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, but 3 of 4 sanctioned member posts were vacant (75%, with no vacancy in 2021-2023). 79% of cases were pending for more than 3 years as of 2025 -- the worst such figure of any state or UT covered by this report.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Kerala Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had no sitting president. Member vacancy was 60% (3 of 5 sanctioned posts vacant) -- the statutory minimum composition was met only in 2022 and 2023. 41% of cases were pending over 3 years as of 2025, and average disposal time was 1,234 days, nearly eight times the statutory maximum, despite an average case-clearance rate of 102% (2020-2024).
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Madhya Pradesh Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president, with a 36% member-post shortfall. Case clearance was 64.5% for 2020-2024 -- the lowest among the large/mid-sized states compared -- and average disposal time exceeded 600 days, nearly four times the statutory maximum. Mumbai's four District Commissions cleared only 36% of cases filed between 2022 and 2025.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Maharashtra Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, but 2 of its 4 sanctioned member posts were vacant (50%). Case clearance (State + District Commissions) exceeded 136% between 2020 and 2024 -- the highest reported among the states/UTs covered -- with only 13% of cases pending over 3 years.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Meghalaya Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, with 30% member vacancy (3 of 10 sanctioned posts, up from 10% in 2021). Case clearance was under 80% over 2020-2024, with an average disposal time of 695 days. Only 11% of cases were pending over 3 years -- the second-best such figure among the 19 states compared.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Rajasthan Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had no sitting president, though all sanctioned member posts were filled (0% member vacancy, one of only four states nationally reporting full member staffing). Despite a 100% case-clearance rate (2020-2024), average disposal time was about 974 days -- nearly six times the statutory maximum -- and only 12 of Telangana's 33 districts have a District Commission at all.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Telangana Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, with 1 of 4 sanctioned member posts vacant (25%) -- though the report itself flags that the sanctioned member strength was reduced from 10 posts (2021) to 4 (2025), which mechanically lowered the reported vacancy rate rather than reflecting real capacity improvement. 62% of cases were pending over 3 years as of 2025, and average disposal time was 1,187 days.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, Uttar Pradesh Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
As of 2025, the Commission had a sitting president throughout 2021-2025, with half of its 10 sanctioned member posts vacant (50%, after sanctioned strength itself grew from 6 to 10 over the period). 87% of the roughly 35,200 cases filed since 2010 have been disposed, with an average disposal time of 461 days; all 23 districts have their own District Commission.
Source: India Justice Report/DAKSH, Consumer Justice Report 2026, West Bengal Press Release (18 Mar 2026); Lok Sabha Unstarred Q. Nos. 5127 (02.04.2025) & 4320 (26.03.2025). · Last checked 2026-09-18
These are the remedies Indian law provides for this kind of situation -- not a recommendation, and not every remedy will apply to your own facts.
Yes. Under Section 34(2)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, you can file at the District Commission located where YOU reside or work -- not only where the seller is registered or where you bought the item, as the old 1986 Act required. You can also file entirely online through the e-Jagriti portal, so there's no need to travel to the seller's state.
The opposite party gets 30 days from receiving your complaint to respond, extendable by up to 15 more days at the Commission's discretion. If they still don't respond, the Commission proceeds ex parte -- deciding the case based only on your evidence and pleadings, which usually works in your favour since no one is contesting your account.
Yes. Section 2(7) of the Act defines 'consumer' to include not just the buyer, but any user or beneficiary of goods/services who uses them with the approval of the person who paid -- a gift recipient using a defective item someone else purchased for them is covered.
All three can be named as opposite parties in the same complaint, and the Commission determines who is responsible. The manufacturer answers for a manufacturing defect, the seller for the specific sale/service, and under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 a marketplace e-commerce entity carries its own duties -- including a prior written contract with the seller, and a grievance officer who must acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours and redress it within one month. You don't need to correctly guess in advance which one is liable.
Yes. The Act's compensation provisions cover loss or injury suffered due to negligence or deficiency in service, and Consumer Commissions have consistently read this to include mental agony and harassment as a distinct amount over and above a refund -- compensation of this kind is awarded where it is specifically claimed and supported by evidence of the distress caused.
The Act sets no minimum claim value, so a low-value complaint is legally just as valid as a large one, and e-Jagriti filing is free for claims up to Rs.5 lakh. There is no legal floor on the amount.
Yes -- and there is a further step most people aren't told about. A Commission's order is enforced the same way a civil court decree is (Section 71), including attachment of the opposite party's property, appointing a receiver, or ordering a sale to realise the amount. Separately, Section 72 makes ignoring a Commission's order itself a punishable offence -- imprisonment from one month up to three years, and/or a fine from Rs.25,000 up to Rs.1 lakh, tried by the District Commission itself acting as a Magistrate.
Not for free. Whoever is ordered to pay -- the losing side -- must first deposit 50% of that amount before their appeal is even entertained, at both the District-to-State and State-to-National stages (the provisos to Sections 41 and 51). This exists specifically to discourage appeals filed only to stall payment.
No -- the CCPA and the Consumer Commission do different jobs. The CCPA, established under Section 10, investigates and acts against unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements affecting consumers as a class. It can begin an inquiry on its own motion (Section 19(1)), and after investigation can order a recall of dangerous, hazardous or unsafe goods and reimbursement of the prices of the goods or services recalled, and can order an unfair practice to be discontinued (Section 20). It is not a forum for one person's own individual compensation claim; for that, you still need the Commission.
Not yet. The National Consumer Helpline and its INGRAM portal are a pre-litigation grievance channel, not a Consumer Commission filing -- a complaint number from 1915 is not a case number. The 2-year period under Section 69 continues to run while a helpline complaint is pending.
It can offer to, not force it. Section 37 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 lets the Commission refer your dispute to the consumer mediation cell attached to it -- at the first hearing after the complaint is admitted, or at any later stage where a settlement looks possible -- but only where both sides give written consent. The mediation itself is governed by Chapter V (Sections 74 to 81). If a settlement is reached, the Commission records it and disposes of the case on that basis within 7 days of getting the mediator's report; if it doesn't work out, your case simply continues before the Commission as before. If a settlement is reached, the complainant is entitled to a refund of the full application fee paid.
Yes. The Supreme Court has confirmed that where only a few consumers have the same grievance, there is nothing stopping them from joining together and filing one complaint seeking their own relief -- such a complaint falls under Section 35(1)(a) read with Section 2(5)(i), and needs no permission from the Commission. Section 35(1)(c) is a different, more formal route: it applies where one or more consumers file on behalf of, or for the benefit of, numerous consumers having the same interest, and that route does require the District Commission's permission (Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138). One likely effect of filing jointly: the pecuniary-jurisdiction test is generally applied to the combined consideration paid by everyone joining, rather than any one person's share -- though that principle was developed for representative complaints under the earlier 1986 Act, so confirm it for your own case.
Not always. Section 67 gives you an appeal to the Supreme Court as of right only where the National Commission itself decided your case in its own original jurisdiction (broadly, cases valued above Rs.2 crore that were filed directly with the National Commission). If your case reached the National Commission only because you appealed a State Commission's order, Section 67 does not apply to that appellate order at all -- your remedy there is a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, which is the Supreme Court's own discretion to hear or decline, not a right.
Yes, in most cases. The Supreme Court held in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 651, that medical services rendered for a fee (including where a hospital charges some patients to subsidise free treatment for others) fall within the Consumer Protection Act's definition of 'service' -- a patient can bring a deficiency-in-service complaint before a Consumer Commission. This does not cover treatment that was genuinely free to everyone, or the personal, individual contract of service a patient has with a specific private doctor engaged directly (as opposed to a hospital's institutional service).
A fixed slab fee applies: Rs.200 (up to Rs.10 lakh), Rs.400 (up to Rs.20 lakh) and Rs.1,000 (up to Rs.50 lakh) at the District Commission; Rs.2,000-Rs.2,500 at the State Commission; Rs.3,000-Rs.7,500 at the National Commission. If the Commission refers the case to mediation and a settlement is reached, the full fee is refundable.
Governing law: Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Source: Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ss.2(7), 10, 19-20, 34, 35, 37, 38(2)(a), 39, 41, 51, 58, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74-81, 82-87; Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021 (notification dated 30.12.2021); Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020 (fee Table); Consumer Protection (Mediation) Rules, 2020, r.5; Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020; e-Jagriti (successor to e-Daakhil, retired 1 January 2025); Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 593; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Constitution Bench, 4 March 2020); Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138.
Aadhrix does not decide which route applies to you. This describes the official process as published — consider an advocate for advice specific to your situation.
Dealing with this yourself?
Track it in your own Aadhrix -- keep the documents, dates, and follow-ups together in one place, free.
Track this in your own Aadhrix