Heard counsel for the petitioner.  Revision has been filed with delay of 111 days as per office note.  According to the condonation application, it is stated that order dated 10.2.2010 was received by the petitioner on or about second week of June, 2010.  Counsel for the petitioner is not able to place any material that the same was received in second week of June, 2010.  The certified copy of the impugned judgment of the State Commission which has been filed in original revision at pages 17 to 19 shows that first copy was issued on 19.2.2010.  The explanation which is given in para 4 and 5 cannot be accepted since no details in support of the said explanation have been given and merely general and routine grounds are given in support of the condonation application.  The condonation application does not even mentioned the number of day’s delay and the relevant columns in the condonation application are left blank.  We do not find that sufficient explanation has been given to condone the enormous delay of 111 days.  In view of this, condonation application is rejected.

On merits, there are concurrent findings of two fora below and we do not find that any case has been made to interfere with the same in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  Consequently, the revision stands rejected with no order as to costs.