PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Complainants against the impugned order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 3248/SC/ 2006 Pahuchi Lal & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant tractor no. UP 64 B 4660 was insured by respondent/OP for a period of one year commencing from 9.10.2001 to 8.10.2002. On 30.6.2002, tractor was looted near the bridge of Arvind River. Report was lodged and after observing all the formalities, OP/respondent paid Rs.2,33,000/- instead of Rs.2,80,000/- to the petitioners and not made balance payment of Rs.47,000/- Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complaint was filed before the District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that Rs.2,33,000/- was given as full and final satisfaction. It was also alleged that previously, Complaint No.306 of 2004 was filed in which, aforesaid amount was given and now petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground of full and final payment and further observed that earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 9.9.2005. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Petitioners filed revision petition along with application for condonation of delay. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission passed impugned order on 29.3.2007, whereas revision has been filed on 30.1.2008 meaning thereby, the revision petition has been filed almost after 10 months. In the application for condonation of delay, he has given ground for condonation of delay as under: . That the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by State Commission as the counsel did not inform at all. Now the petitioner went there and get the information hence there is delay. 3. That the petitioner went in December to the counsel to verify the case as other part was saying that the petitioner has lost. In January, he somehow able to get the copy hence there is delay which is bonafide He has not disclosed in his application, when he came to know about impugned order. No cogent reason has been given for condonation of delay and in such circumstances; revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 5. By order dated 20.5.2013, it was observed that revision petition filed by petitioner no. 1 abate against the respondent. 6. As far as merits of the case are concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were entitled to Rs.47,000/- as per declared value in the insurance policy and learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and Rs.47,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as amount has been received by the petitioner as full and final satisfaction and Rs.47,000/- has been deducted on account of depreciation, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 7. Perusal of order passed by District Forum reveals that petitioners accepted Rs.2,33,000/- as full and final satisfaction in earlier complaint No. 306 of 2004 filed before the District Forum. In such circumstances, no second complaint was maintainable and, as the complainants received amount in full and final satisfaction of claim, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing appeal. Order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed with no order as to costs.