Heard Counsel for the petitioner on condonation as also on merits.  The delay is of 198 days in filing the revision for which the explanation is given to condone the delay in para 2 of the condonation application, which reads as under:

“That the certified copy of the impugned order was served upon the petitioner on 26.11.2009.  The petitioner is a poor and illiterate villager and it took some time to arrange for the money to file the revision petition and some delay occurred in filing the present revision petition as it took some time for collecting the documents from various courts and to engage the counsel in Delhi.  Whole of the records of the case were Hindi and were to be translated in English which took  considerable time so as to file the present revision petition.  So, there is a delay of 191 in filing the revision petition.”

          The above explanation by no stretch of imagination can be a sufficient cause for condoning enormous delay of 198 days. No corresponding details have been given by the petitioner as to how much time was spent to arrange money to file the revision ; when the  papers and documents  were collected from various sources ; and how much was the amount of translation to be done from Hindi to English.  In the absence of necessary details, the explanation given by the petitioner cannot be accepted as justification for condoning the delay of 198 days and the revision is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 

Even on merits, we do not find that any case has been made out to interfere with concurrent findings of two fora below.  The case of the petitioner that the insured was knocked down by Bhupendra Singh has been disbelieved by fora below.  Both the fora below have held that it is not a case of accidental death.  We do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  Therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision.  The revision, is dismissed, both on the ground of condonation of delay as also on merits, with no order as to cost.