Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Appeal No. 386/2008, the original complainant, has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent insurance company aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat in complaint No. 317 / 2007, by which order the said District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,38,305/- together with Rs.3,300/- as litigation cost within a period of 30 days to the complainant on furnishing of bills of repairs and on getting the vehicle inspected from the OP surveyor to the determination of the compensation. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the insurance company had not committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant inasmuch as there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 2. The present petition has been filed after undue delay of 253 days (according to the petitioner 250 days) and an application for condonation of the said has also been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question as to whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause entitling her to a favourable exercise of judicial discretion vested in this Commission in the matter of condonation of delay. The only ground put forth by the petitioner is that she is a woman and during the relevant period when she ought to have taken action for filing the petition was pregnant and delivered a baby and, thereafter she became busy in taking care of the infant child. One being conscious of such facts would certainly have adopted somewhat liberal attitude giving a margin of some days during which the petitioner can be said to have been prevented from filing the proceedings but that liberal attitude could not be extended to condone the delay of as high as 253 days. Even if the petitioner herself was somewhat handicapped in taking appropriate steps for pursuing the matter her husband or any other member of the family could certainly take the requisite steps required for filing the petition before this Commission. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the huge delay in filing the present petition. The application is accordingly declined. 3. Even after doing so, we have considered the merits of the case. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position emanating from the correct interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that the non-registration of the vehicle with the concerned Motor Transport Authority is not fatal inasmuch as the vehicle could be registered after the prescribed period by paying certain penalty. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because in the case in hand, it is not disputed that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner some time in December 2006 and it was got registered with the concerned transport authority only on 22.03.2007, i.e., after about 14 days of the accident in which the vehicle, in question, was damaged. Plying of a non-registered vehicle is an offence prescribed under the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in term can be seen as a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The State Commission was, therefore, fully justified in taking the view it has taken. In our view, the insurance claim of the petitioner has been rightly repudiated by the insurance company on the above grounds. Moreover, we may notice that the order passed by the District Forum even if the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy could be brushed aside, was incapable of implementation so much so that despite having availed the opportunity, the petitioner failed to produce the bills / cash memo of the repairs of the vehicle in question. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed on both the counts.