Aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short tate Commission in appeal No. 126/2009, complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. 2. At the outset, we may notice that the present petition has been filed after an undue delay of 308 days and an application for condition has also been filed. We have perused the said application and have heard Mr. Rajesh Mahale Counsel for the petitioner. The only ground / reason set-up for not filing the present proceedings within stipulated period of 90 days after excluding all other times is that the petitioner is a lady and was not aware of the legal proceedings and was not suitably advised by her counsel who represented her in the State Commission and, therefore, the delay has been caused. Firstly the explanation does not appear to be probable and believable and secondly, even if we go on the face of it, it does not show sufficient cause within the meaning of the term entitling the petitioner to see generous discretion of this Commission. In our view the undue delay in this case is not liable to be condoned on the alleged ground. The application is declined. Even then, on merits, we have considered the matter and find that the conduct of the petitioner from the very beginning was of a defaulting nature inasmuch as she filed the complaint almost seven years of purchase of the machine from the opposite party alleging manufacturing defects in the said machine. The State Commission was fully justified in taking the view it has taken in the matter and we see no illegality or material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. Dismissed.