Being aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)(for short, tate Commission, Petitioner/Complainant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ct which has been converted into a revision petition. 2. Alongwith this revision, petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. However, in the entire application, no period of delay has been mentioned. However, as per the office report, there is delay of 290 days. 3. Petitioner/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal(for short, istrict Forum on the grounds that he had purchased a Dish TV DTH from Respondent No.1/O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,490/-. It is alleged that from the date of installation of Dish TV, it was not working properly and it was handed over to Respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 for repairs. When petitioner approached respondent no.2 to take Dish Box, he found that it was in a broken condition. However, when the said Box was installed with TV, it gave problem to DTH. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondents, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. 4. The complaint was contested by the respondents. 5. District Forum, vide order dated 23.2.2012 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner, filed an appeal before the State Commission which came up for hearing before it on 03.09.2012. On that date, none was present on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the State Commission held; erusal of the file shows that this appeal was received in this Commission by post on 29.6.2012, thereafter, it was listed for motion hearing on 10.7.2012. On the date of motion hearing, taking into account the non-appearance of the appellant, notice was ordered to be issued to him for today. In pursuance to the order dated 10.7.2012, notice was issued by the office under office dispatch No. 2198 dated 13.7.2011. A period of 30 days has already been passed but notice has neither been received back served nor unserved. Even appellant did not take care to appear before this Commission to argue the matter on motion hearing. In the absence of the appellant, we proceed to pass an appropriate order, after going through the entire case file 7. The State Commission, as per impugned order concurred with the view of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal in limine. 8. Now, petitioner has filed this revision. 9. We have heard the petitioner who has argued the matter on his own and gone through the record. 10. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not receive the copy of impugned order dated 03.09.2012. Hence, on 4.8.2013 and 15.09.2013, he sent e-mail to the State Commission and wrote an application to the Secretary of the State Commission on 23.8.2013 asking for the status of his case. Thereafter, on 24.09.2013, he visited the State Commission, Haryana and enquired about his case and got the certified copy of the order. Immediately thereafter, he filed the appeal before this Commission and thus the same is within time. 12. It is an admitted case that petitioner was Appellant before the State Commission. Once petitioner has filed the appeal before the State Commission, it was his bounden duty to have followed it with due care and diligently. Petitioner after filing the appeal, went into deep slumber and never bothered to know about the status of its appeal. 13. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the impugned order that, notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner by the State Commission. Inspite thereof, petitioner did not appear. 14. Secondly, petitioner has made false averments in the present petition that he did not receive the free copy of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Petitioner himself has placed on record certified copy of the impugned order dated 03.09.2012 issued to him on his application for obtaining the certified copy on which there is an endorsement which states; ertified copy of the order supplied free of cost to the parties/counsel on 12.09.2012 15. As petitioner has been supplied with the free copy of the impugned order, as early as on 12.09.2012 and the present revision petition has been filed only on 27.09.2013, thus there is long delay of 290 days in filing of the revision before this Commission. 16. Recently, Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that; t 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 Foras 17. Thus, no sufficient ground whatsoever seeking condonation of delay of 290 days, has been shown by the petitioner at all. 18 In view of above decision of Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal(Supra), we find no ground to condone the long delay of 290 days. Hence, application for condonation of delay being not maintainable is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is not maintainable, being barred by limitation and the same stand dismissed. 19. No order as to cost.