Heard counsel for the petitioner. 

          The revision has been filed with delay of 574 and the only reason given for delay in filing the revision is found  in  para 3 and 4 of  the condonation application wherein it is stated that the petitioner came to know of the order in the month of July, 2010 from the respondent – Company. However, the appeal was filed only in the month of Nov., 2010.  There is no sufficient explanation for filing the appeal in Nov., 2010 even assuming for a moment that the petitioner came to know of the impugned order in the month of July, 2010.  In fact, there is no sufficient ground to condone the enormous delay of 574 days.  The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.

          Even on merits, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the order of the State Commission.  The State Commission has very rightly held that the amount was stolen from the shop of the petitioner and it was not in transit.  The complainant was not entitled to receive any amount under the transit policy. The State Commission has very rightly allowed the appeal. 

Therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision.  The revision is dismissed both on the ground of condonation of delay as also on merits, with no order as to cost.