Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, i.e., order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani and order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 877 / 2009, the DHBVN has filed the present petition. Both the Fora below have held the petitioner and its authority guilty of deficiency in service for not maintaining their high voltage electric line which was passing through the agricultural field as a result of which a 19 year old young man lost his life due to electrocution. The Fora below have awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakh to the mother of the deceased. In our view, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner ought to have gracefully accepted the order of the Fora below and paid the amount. Instead of doing that, the present petition has been filed after an undue delay of 114 days challenging the order of the State Commission. The application for condonation of delay has been filed setting out certain reasons like procedural delay, the office of petitioner at different locations. In our view, the reasons set out in the application do not constitute ufficient causeentitling the complainant to exercise of the judicial discretion of this Commission in their favour and for condoning undue delay of 114 days because this is over and above 90 days period which has been prescribed for filing the revision petition. The application is declined and consequently the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. However, even then we have looked into the merits of the matter and we find that the findings recorded by the Fora below are eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which warrants interference by this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed on both counts.