Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

Appellant and advocate are absent. Advocate Mr.Bhushan Dafle is present for respondent No.1. None present for respondent No.2. As per the submissions of learned advocate for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 as original complainant has already filed reply to delay condonation application filed by the appellant. There is delay of 951. days in filing of this appeal and alongwith this the appellant has filed delay condonation application. On perusal of record appellant is consistently absent for almost four times from 27/01/2021. Today also the appellant and advocate are absent. Hence heard on the point of delay condonation application and submissions made by learned advocate for respondent No.1. As per the submissions and reply given by respondent No.1 on delay condonation application, appellant was duly represented before the District Consumer Commission Nagpur. During the hearing of the consumer complaint, order which  was passed on 23/09/2015 in Consumer Complaint No.427/2010, the respondent No.1 who is the original complainant has opposed the delay condonation application filed by the appellant. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for respondent No.1 and perusal of record, Commission is of the opinion that the delay of 951 days can not be condoned as there is no sufficient reason cited by the appellant in the delay condonation application and hence the delay condonation application filed by the appellant is hereby rejected. Consequently the appeal does not survive for consideration and hence disposed of.