Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the Manipur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 12/2009, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (opposite party before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner insurance company against the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal, in complaint case no. 101 / 2008 by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,625/- as compensation to the complainant in respect of the damage to his Maruti Car which wad damaged in an accident. Besides that, the District Forum had also awarded a punitive cost of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited in the onsumer Welfare Fundof Manipur State for not disclosing the Indian Motor Tariff Regulation. The State Commission, however, waived the punitive cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the District Forum and restored the rest of the order of the District Forum. 2. The present petition has been filed after undue delay of 232 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed alongwith the petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner firstly on the question as to whether there exists sufficient cause within the meaning of the term entitling the petitioner for exercise of favourable judicial discretion vested in this Commission in favour of the petitioner. The only ground putforth in the said application is that there was insurgency situation in the State of Manipur due to which it was not possible for the concerned officers to take prompt action for filing the revision after the order of the State Commission was passed. It is also pleaded that one of the officers got transferred to Noida from Kolkata office, which also contributed to the delay in filing the petition. We have considered these reasons / grounds set out in the application but in our view they cannot amount to sufficient cause entitling the petitioner for condonation of delay. It appears that the head office of the petitioner is located in Kolkata or Noida where it cannot be said that those areas were under insurgency situation. The grounds for condoning the delay are untenable and the application is, therefore, declined. 3. Even then we have considered the orders passed by the Fora below. In our view the same are based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence and material brought on record as also in consonance with the law as laid down by the Honle Supreme Court in the case of omplete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[(1) T.A.C. 340 SC.] as also the guidelines forming part of Indian Motor Tariff Regulations issued by the General Insurance Co. with regard to transfer of vehicle and insurance. In our view, the impugned order passed by the fora below is eminently justified and suffer from no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission. The revision petition is dismissed on both the counts, i.e., barred by limitation as well as on merits.