ORAL The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 01.06.2018 of the State Commission in Complaint No.178 of 2017. 2. This Appeal has been filed with a delay of more than one year. IA 16443 of 2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the application, it is stated that the Complaint was disposed of on 01.06.2018 and he did not receive copy of the same. However, the passing of the order was within the -2- knowledge of the appellant. When it pursued the matter with its counsel, he did not have the certified copy. The appellant applied for the same on 03.09.2019 and received the copy on 04.09.2019 and filed the Appeal on 01.10.2019. It is submitted that in was in these circumstances that the Appeal could not be filed within limitation and it is prayed that the delay of more than one year be condoned. 3. We have heard the arguments and perused the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel. It is the duty of the applicant to explain to the court the sufficient reasons for delay. The reason should be of the nature which prevented him from coming to the court within the period of limitation. Unless sufficient reasons are shown, the courts are prevented from exercising its jurisdiction from extending the period of limitation by condoning it. Party is required to show that it had been acting with diligence and remained active and the delay had occurred for the reasons beyond its control. In “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, 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 -3- 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 “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the special nature of the Act needs to be kept in mind while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble 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." 5. In the present case, the passing of the order was within the knowledge of the appellant. Also the free certified copy of the order was dispatched to the appellant on 06.10.2018. After passing of the order dated 01.06.2018 till 03.09.2019, the appellant made no effort to obtain either the certified copy or any -4- other type of copy from the court. It is apparent from the contention in the application that it was only after a year the appellant contacted its counsel and applied for the certified copy. This shows that it was only after one year that the Appellant thought of filing the Appeal. No ground for condonation of delay is made out. The application has no merit and the same is dismissed. 6. Consequently, the present Appeal is also dismissed. | 
