JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.05.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 251 of 2013 of respondent nos. 1 & 2. Since, the Appeal has been filed with delay of 348 days, an application being IA No. 9483 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant have been heard on this application. My order on the application is as under: IA No. 9483 of 2019 ( condonation of delay 1. It is argued by counsel for the appellant that delay had occurred since the appellant became aware of the order dated 21.05.2018 only in April 2019 accidentally when the counsel had gone to the State Commission for attending other matter of the appellant and chanced upon to see the cause list and learnt that execution petitions were pending. Thereafter, an application for certified copy was filed immediately and certified copy of impugned order was received on 03.06.2019. The appeal was drafted thereafter and was filed on 06.06.2019. It is submitted that delay had occurred due to these reasons and was not intentional. 2. It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The applicant is required to give sufficient causes while seeking condonation of delay. Sufficient causes means that party had acted diligently and bonafidely but -3- where party is said to have not acted diligently and remained inactive, it cannot be said that party had sufficient causes for condonation of delay. It is also settled proposition of law that limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. 3. In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that condonation of delay is a discretionary jurisdiction and has to be exercised in appropriate cases. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where the party has not acted diligently and bonafidely, such a discretion should not be exercised in its favour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 4. In the case of R.B..Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 SC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that it is the duty of the Court to examine whether the delay has been properly explained and the test to be applied is -4- that whether petitioner had acted with reasonable diligence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 5. In the present case, the ground given is ignorance of passing of the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 till April 2019 when the petitioner learnt that execution application is pending against him that too through his advocate who had gone to the State Commission to attend another matter and happened to check the cause list and learnt about it. Under the Act, the Commissions are bound to serve a free copy of its order upon both the parties. There is no contention in the application that no such free copy had been sent to the petitioner or if sent, had not been received by it. The contention is that they learnt of the order in April 2019 and that the certified copy was supplied to them on 03.06.2019. It is not disclosed as to on which date they applied for the certified copy. All these facts show that delay has not been sufficiently explained. Even if, I presume that appellant had learnt of the impugned order in April 2019, admittedly the appeal has not been filed within the period of limitation i.e. within 30 days from the date of such knowledge. 6. In the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing -5- with such application, special nature of Act should be kept in mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora." 7. For the aforegoing reasons, I found no reason to condone the delay of 348 days. Application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. First Appeal Consequently, thereupon, First Appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. | 
