This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/opposite parties, the National Insurance Company Limited, assailing the order of the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’ for short) dated 12.02.2009, vide which, after a detailed analysis of the points raised by the petitioners/opposite parties in their memorandum of appeal, the State Commission has dismissed their appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 3rd of September, 2008, directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.10.00 Lakh as the insured amount of the vehicle and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and in addition Rs.5000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the cost of litigation. When the matter was taken up for admission, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties that the Registry has reported a delay of 111 days in filing the revision petition, in defence of which the learned counsel has submitted that an application for condonation of delay in this regard has been filed. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay, however, makes a pathetic reading. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the application for condonation of delay has been prepared and filed in a mechanical manner without checking the contents in the application. The casual approach is evident from the fact that para nos. 1 and 8 and (a) of the prayer clause have been left blank. While admitting the delay of 111 days as calculated by the Registry, the learned counsel has submitted that blanks in the application were because of her not being aware as to how much delay has occurred and it was left to her clerk to calculate the exact delay and fill-in the blanks. She further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and has been occasioned because of the procedural necessities, which were beyond the control of the petitioners/opposite parties. The application does not disclose the steps required to be taken as per the procedure and the delay that occurred at every stage. Merely saying that the matter was referred to the competent authority and was subsequently sent to the Regional Office at Delhi, who, thereafter, forwarded it to their Advocate on panel, without giving any details of the movement of the papers, only reveals the casual and perfunctory approach of the petitioners/opposite parties to the whole matter. This, in our view, does not constitute sufficient cause and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. We have, however, looked into merits of the case as well. While it is the say of the petitioners/opposite parties that the truck which was insured for a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakh was taken away by some miscreants by threatening the driver and the cleaner, which act constituted “extortion and not theft”, the claim was not covered under Section 1 of terms and conditions which indemnifies loss to a motor vehicle only in case of ‘burglary, house breaking or theft’. Main thrust of the learned counsel’s argument is that the instant was not a case of theft but extortion and, therefore, the State Commission has wrongly held it to be a case of theft. We have carefully perused the records and the exhaustive discussion contained in the order passed by the State Commission elucidating as to what constitute “robbery, extortion, theft, dacoity”. We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that “if extortion is there, the theft would be implied in that and therefore, theft could not be separated from extortion and further the theft is the pivot around which extortion, robbery and dacoity rotate; meaning thereby theft is implied in all i.e. extortion, robbery and dacoity and thus if in the present case robbery or dacoity was committed with extortion, it does not mean that theft was missing”. The learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties has not been able to persuade us as to what other view can be taken in a situation where there is threat to life and the vehicle was taken away by the anti-social elements, which is only a higher form of theft. In view of the above, the revision petition fails both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.