PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 172 of 2010 Vishal Sood Vs. Regional Manager, M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner purchased vehicle in February, 2005 for Rs.4,95,600/- after raising loan. He agreed to pay loan in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.10,325/- and submitted 40 post-dated cheques. He received notice from OP/Respondent demanding Rs.44,414/- due from him asking him to make payment immediately or return the vehicle. On the next day, the vehicle was repossessed by OP and later on it was sold for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- and this amount was appropriated towards the loan liability of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the vehicle was repossessed illegally. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested and submitted that only after notice; vehicle was repossessed and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, held that repossession of the vehicle was illegal and allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission for enhancement of compensation and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that certified copy of the impugned order was received by him on 19.12.2012 and revision petition filed by him is well within time; even then, petitioner is filing application to avoid any illegal complications. Registry reported delay of 192 days in filing revision petition. By the order dated 22.3.2013, it was observed that petitioner received free copy of the order by hand on 23.5.2012 and learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment for verification. Later on, petitioner filed affidavit on 17.9.2013 in which he admitted receipt of copy of order on 23.5.2012 and submitted that copy was handed over to his Counsel on the same day who assured to file revision petition, but revision petition was not filed and later on his Counsel returned brief to him. Petitioner obtained certified copy for filing this revision petition. 5. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner stated that revision petition has been filed within the period of limitation and only on inquiry he filed affidavit in which he admitted receipt of copy of the order on 23.5.2012 and concocted new story that copy of the order was given to the Counsel for filing revision petition who assured to file revision petition, but was not filed and brief was returned. Thus, it becomes clear that he tried to mislead this Commission and suppressed the fact of receipt of free copy by hand in application for condonation of delay. Petitioner has not come with clean hands in filing the application for condonation of delay. Not only this, petitioner has not given any cogent reason for inordinate delay of 192 days in filing revision petition and concocted false story that copy was given to the Counsel for filing revision petition who assured to file revision petition and later on returned the brief. He has also not filed affidavit of his Counsel to whom copy of order was given for preparation of revision petition and in the absence of such affidavit, it cannot be believed that petitioner handed over copy of the order to the Counsel for filing revision petition. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner wilfully suppressed this fact in application for condonation of delay. 7. As there is inordinate delay of 192 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgments passed by the Honle Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. 8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as bared by limitation at admission stage with no order as to cost.