Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 68 / 2010, the insurance company has filed the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 26.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam thereby dismissing the complaint of the complainant. However, in the appeal, the State Commission has revered the said finding and the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the complaint to the extent that the complainant was entitled to further sum of Rs.1,57,920/- in addition to amount at which the insurance company had already settled the claim of the complainant on repair basis of the shell of the motor vehicle. 2. We have heard Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, we may notice that the petition has been filed after undue delay of 93 days. Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed stating certain reasons relating to the procedural delay in filing the present petition but we are not satisfied that it will make sufficient cause for the exercise of judicial discretion of this Commission in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, decline the prayer for condonation of delay. Even then, we have considered the contentions of the petitioner on merits. In our view, the only contention raised is that the assessment of loss occasioned to the complainant was assessed on the repair basis of the motor vehicle and the shell of the vehicle did not require replacement. The State Commission has examined the question in much greater details by a reasoned order and has also got the vehicle inspected through a court commissioner and thereafter made the impugned order. In our view, having regard to the entirety to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, the State Commission was fully justified in taking the view, which it had taken. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.