The OP in the application for condonation of delay did not state as to when the OP was served with notice of the complaint. The Petitioner only stated about the email sent on 04/09/2013. The petitioner also did not mention the name of the Counsel of the centralized law firm on account of whose illness appropriate reply could not be drafted nor produced any certificate of his illness. The approach was but casual, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay was also liable to be dismissed on merits, apart, from the fact that the delay of more than 45 days could not have been condoned by the Lr. District Forum, in view of the law declared by a later decision of the Apex Court, (in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd., 2004 (II) SCC 472) followed by the National Commission and then by this Commission. It is this law which is required to be followed till such time the law is reconsidered by a larger Bench of the Apex Court where the matter is now pending.

We therefore find there is no merit in this revision and therefore we proceed to dismiss the same with no order as to costs.