Heard learned counsel for the parties. There has been delay of 221 days in filing revision petition beyond prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed assigning reasons that since petitioner suffered serious illness, it took lot of time for recovery in order to come to Delhi and to process filing of revision petition. Least it to say that reasons assigned by petitioner are not supported even by medical certificates. The revision petition in the circumstances merits dismissal for belated filing of revision petition alone. However we have gone into merits of case also. The factual matrix are that petitioner who runs hotel business had insured his hotel premises together with furniture and electrical appliances under fire insurance policy for the period 31.8.2004 to 30.8.2005. It was on 25-26/7/2005 due to heavy rains the furniture and electrical appliances kept in insured premises allegedly suffered damages. After claim was lodged with respondent/insurance company surveyor appointed by company having suspected genuineness of complaint for there being no rain water entering premises, claim of petitioner was eventually repudiated by insurance company. After door of consumer fora was knocked by filing a complaint District Forum having overruled contentions on behalf of respondent company directed them to pay Rs. 1,81,277/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 19.9.2005 and also awarded cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-. In appeal that was preferred by respondent company, finding of District Forum was however modified restricting claim to Rs. 96,994/-. As claim for Rs. 83,283/- claimed by petitioner for repairs of structures was not accepted by State Commission only on a rough estimate without affidavit of Executive Engineer who prepared said estimate. State Commission did not give credence to this aspect of matter and disallowed claim of Rs. 83,283/-. Since claim for Rs. 83,283/- was based simply on rough estimate of repairs which had not been supported by an affidavit, rejection of claim of this ground cannot be said to be erroneous and revision petition on merits too deserves dismissal which we do accordingly but with no order as to cost.