PER MR.JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMEBR There is a delay of 129 days in filing the revision. In condonation application it is stated that after the certified copy of order was kept pending before different officerstable of the revisionist authority for appropriate noting; the copy of order was sent to local counsel who returned the file in second week of February, 2010 with opinion to file revision; on 25.2.2010 the matter was sent to Standing Counsel; that Shri Sanjeev Jha associated with the office of Standing Counsel started to draft the revision petition; that Shri Sanjeev Jha who was looking after the present case lost the file with other jumble of luggage while readjusting his internal decoration of tenanted house and the file could be traced in 3rd week of May, 2010. When Advocate Shri Sanjeev Jha started drafting is not disclosed. No affidavit is filed of Shri Sanjeev Jha that the file was lost with jumble of luggage. The date when the file got jumbled in the luggage was not mentioned. It is further stated that after the preparation of the draft, Shri Sanjeev Jha faced a different problem as some Annexures were in vernacular language; translation was very difficult and time consuming. How many pages were got translated and how much time it actually took has not been disclosed in the application. The condonation application at page 39 does not even mention the number of day delay. In our view, the explanation given in the condonation application is not quite satisfactory, yet we are inclined to condone the delay on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- which has already been deposited in this Commission which shall be credited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent who appears in person. Limited notice in this case was issued as to quantum of interest and the period for which the interest is to be paid. The Respondent who appears in person has stated that he has received the payments in terms of the order of the District Forum and nothing is due from the Petitioner in so far as these proceedings are concerned. The fora below have awarded 18% p.a. interest. On enquiry, from Counsel for the Petitioner it was informed that in case of default of payment, the Petitioner charges 15 to 18% p.a. interest. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to entertain this revision against the concurrent findings of two fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.