Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2011, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 494/2005, the original complainant has approached this Commission with this petition purportedly filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by Amritsar Improvement Trust through its Chairman, against the order dated 08.02.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar in complaint no. 880 of 2004. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and imposed a cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner. 2. The revision petition has been filed after undue delay of 172 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The only reason set out in the application seeking condonation of delay is that the petitioner is a house-lady and due to paucity of fund, could not file the petition within time otherwise she has a good case on merits. In our view, the reasons set out in the application cannot be considered as ufficient causewithin the meaning of term because making a vague allegation that the petitioner had financial constraint and could not file the petition, cannot be accepted on its face value. The law gives 90 daystime to a person to challenge the order by filing a revision petition and in our view that is quite sufficient for the petitioner to make arrangements, to file the petition if he or she is really aggrieved by the order. Unless the delay is explained satisfactorily and on day-to-day basis, this Commission would not exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the petitioner. The application is, therefore, declined. Even then we have considered the merits of the case and in our view, the order passed by the State Commission is fully justified on record going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record. It is also in consonance with the settled legal position as settled by the Supreme Court in similar cases. We, therefore, see no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. The revision petition is dismissed on both the counts.