This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 386/2010, evender Kumar Verma versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,by which, while dismissing appeal, order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalaon, dismissing the complaint no. 146/2007 , was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Devender Kumar Verma bought a Mahindra Jeep 2 WD for Rs.3,60,000/- on 07.01.1998 and got it insured with the OP Oriental Insurance Co. by paying annual premium of Rs.11,264/-, bearing insurance policy no. 1998-1008 dated 08.01.98 and cover note number 484981. On 16.11.1998, at about 8 p.m., four unknown persons are stated to have looted the said jeep, intimation of which was given to the Police and case crime No. nil / 98 u/s 328/394 IPC was got registered at P.S. Kotwali Orai and after investigation, final report was filed in the court of Sub-Judge Urai, bearing criminal case no. 41/2001 and the court accepted the said report on 07.02.2001. It has been stated in the complaint that after the acceptance of final report by the Court, the complainant submitted application to the respondent on 09.02.2001 and the insurance claim was duly filed along with relevant documents. However, the said claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 28.03.2000 saying that the complainant did not complete the necessary formalities required. It was also stated that the complainant had sold out the said jeep or had misappropriated the same, so that the insurance company may not get any investigation done. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed as being time barred and also due to violation of the terms and conditions of insurance. An appeal against this order was also dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the time of admission hearing that the petitioner/complainant tried his best to lodge an FIR with the Police, but the FIR was lodged only after an order was passed by the Court on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner promptly reported the lodging of the FIR to the respondents and they appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. However, the respondent again and again requested for the final report of the Police from the petitioner, but without waiting for the report, repudiated the claim on 28.03.2000. The learned counsel stated that the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are perverse in the eyes of law, because they ignored the fact that he had approached the Police for lodging the FIR and they had refused to register the same. The final report of the Police was submitted to the Court on 7.02.2001 and hence, repudiation of the claim by the insurance company before the submission and acceptance of final report was bad in the eyes of law. The learned counsel further stated that in case there had been any violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim should have been allowed on on-standardbasis, as held by the Honle Apex Court in ational Insurance Co. versus Nitin Khandelwal[2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP)]. He also invited our attention to the letters dated 08.03.99, 30.06.99 and 10.12.99 sent by the surveyor asking for certain documents and final report of Police. 4. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration of the arguments advanced before us. 5. The consumer complaint no. 146/2007 has been filed in July 2007 by the petitioner / complainant, whereas the alleged incident took place on 16.11.98 and the claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on 28.03.2000 and an intimation to this effect was sent by registered post on 30.03.2000. It is very clear, therefore, that the complaint has not been filed within prescribed limitation period of two years from the cause of action, as laid down under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner has not been able to give any reasons for late filing of the complaint. It is made out from record that application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint was also not filed. Moreover, it is also clear from record that the intimation of dacoity was given to the insurance company after 22 23 days of incident, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is clear, therefore, that the State Commission and the District Forum have not committed any illegality or irregularity in arriving at the conclusion for dismissing the said complaint. There is also no reason to agree with the contention of the petitioner that the claim should have been allowed at least on on-standardbasis. It is quite apparent from the letters sent by the surveyor to the petitioner that the insurance company and the surveyor tried their level best to obtain the requisite documents from the petitioner, but he did not take adequate interest in supplying the requisite information. We, therefore, find no justification to amend the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum in any manner. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.