This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 149 days, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the case within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 149 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The only explanation given by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay is that he received the copy of the impugned order from his counsel on 19.5.2011; that the original file of the - 2 - State Commission and the District Forum was misplaced by the counsel which caused delay in filing the revision petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner to condone the delay. Prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Petitioner booked a car which, while in transit, met with an accident. Respondent got it repaired with the consent of the petitioner and delivered it to him with OK certification. After one year of the delivery of the car to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the complaint alleging that he had noticed a number of defects in the car and had spent Rs.26,759/- for getting the vehicle repaired. According to him, the defects had crept in because of the accident which the vehicle had met while in transit from Delhi to Bombay. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay the expenses for removal of the defects in the car within two months from the date of the order. Rs.3,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. - 3 - Respondent, being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has reversed the order of the District Forum by observing thus : “In his complaint after about an year, the Complainant raised a dispute that there was some sound when the steering wheel was turned, the tyres were making a screeching sound, the mileage had become pathetic, steering wheel handle cover was missing etc. According to him he has paid an amount of `26,759/- as per the receipt placed on record. Those repairs were undertaken and carried out on 31.10.2008 i.e. almost after an year after the delivery was taken from the appellants, supra. It may be noted that the Car is the used car at the time of the repairs in question. Once receiving the possession of the Car in OK condition, even if certain repairs were required later on (i.e. on 31.10.2008), and for which expenses of `26,759/- were required to be incurred, there is no nexus established between these repairs and alleged deficiency related to transportation event. Under the circumstances, no deficiencies on the part of the transporter can be claimed. The reasoning of the Forum below is rather hypothetical and based upon no evidence.” - 4 - We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Respondent had got the car repaired after taking consent from the petitioner. The petitioner, having taken delivery of the car with OK certification, cannot be permitted to turn around after one year and claim that the vehicle delivered to him was defective and the defects had crept in because of the accident while in transit. For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits. | 
