This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.3.2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. The revision petition has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation with a delay of 156 days. Thus, the petitioner has moved application for condonation of delay. Expiation for delay is detailed in paras 3-6 of the application which are reproduced thus: - . That from 21.8.2011 to 01.09.2011 petitioners travelled from Vijaywada (AP) New Delhi for filing of revision petition. Petitioners were asked to bring the documents. Petitioners again visited Delhi alongwith documents for filing of revision petition on 20.11.2011. That the counsel for the petitioners informed the petitioners that the documents they are carrying are incomplete and asked for the complete set of documents. -3- 4. That the petitioners requested their counsel for complete set of documents. But the Ld. Counsel failed to hand over the same despite repeated requests. Finally on 14.12.2011 petitioners applied for certified copies of the documents from the District Consumer Forum through their friend. Petitioners friend obtained the copies and posted it to the petitioners. Petitioners received the same on 23.12.2011. 5. That the petitioners on receiving the complete documents posted the same to their counsel in Delhi for drafting the Revision Petition. On 07.02.2012 petitioners counsel prepared the revision petition and posted the draft to the petitioners. 6. That on 24.02.2012 petitioners came to Delhi and handed over the signed draft to the Ld. Counsel for filing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay caused in filing of revision petition is unintentional and the petitioners were prevented from filing the revision petition within time because of the fault of their Lawyer. He further states that to substantiate this plea he has placed on record the communication between the petitioners and the Lawyer from 21.7.2011 onwards. We have considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. On perusal of the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay it is evident that the petitioners were grossly -4- negligent in prosecution of this matter. Admittedly certified copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioners through their counsel on 21.7.2011. Despite that the petitioners kept on sleeping over the matter. One of the explanations given is that the delay has been caused because the counsel asked for complete set of documents and the certified copies of the documents were received by the petitioners on 23.12.2011. It is evident that by then the period of limitation had expired. Despite that as per the allegation made in para-5 of the application the petitioners instead of personally going and handing over the documents to their counsel, posted the documents and almost 45 days were taken to file the revision petition. There is no explanation for the aforesaid period also. That being the case, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. Application is accordingly dismissed. Even on merits the petitioners do not have a case for the reason that as per their own allegations they were indulging in trade of the shares which obviously is a commercial activity. As per the amended definition of consumer which came into force in March, 2003 the person availing services for any commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of consumer. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complaint itself was not maintainable. -5- In view of the above, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.