Heard Counsel for the petitioner on condonation as also on merit.  The delay of 84 days in filing the revision is sought to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and not able to contact his Advocate and later on he met his counsel and asked him to file revision.   Then, the revision was filed without any delay.  The explanation is bereft of essential details which are required to be given in order to seek condonation of delay.  The period during which the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice is nowhere mentioned. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was not able to meet his counsel.  Besides this, no details are given as to when the petitioner was able to meet his counsel and after how many days the revision was filed.  In the absence of necessary details, the explanation given by the petitioner cannot be accepted as justification for condoning the delay of 84 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. First of all, the proceedings filed before the District Forum were bad on account of misjoinder of proper and necessary parties.  The compliant was filed by Devaldev Tiwari son of Policy Holder namely Nathu Ram who had died on 22.1.2001 and  no succession certificate was produced, even though, admittedly, Nathu Ram Tiwari had left many Legal Heirs.  The Special Power of Attorney executed in the favour of Devaldev Tiwari by Nathu Ram Tiwari is deemed to have been expired with his death and it cannot remain valid after his death.  In addition, the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.12.2000 and final report was accepted by CJM on 24.3.2003.  The District Forum had very rightly held that the complaint which was filed somewhere in the year 2008 was barred by limitation.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint was accordingly dismissed.  The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 

In view of the above, 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.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.