This revision petition has been filed under section 21 (a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.11.2007, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 846/2007. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2007 passed by District Forum New Delhi, vide which the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 & 2 was allowed and the opposite party / petitioner was asked to pay Rs.1 lakh as insurance amount to the complainants and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service / mental agony, harassment etc. and in addition, Rs.2,000/- were allowed as costs and litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 & 2 are parents of Manish Sood, since deceased, who met with an accident while driving the motorcycle bearing No. HR-51 P 2154, registered in the name of M/s. Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and insured with the petitioner. The accident occurred on 24.08.2004 and Manish Sood succumbed to his injuries on 02.09.2004. The complainants preferred a claim on 23.03.2005 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh against ersonal accident risk insurance but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the appellant had not charged any premium towards personal accident of the driver, as the vehicle was registered in the name of a company. The District Forum did not accept the contention of the opposite party and allowed the complaint. The State Commission also upheld the order in favour of the complainant and it is against this order that the present petition has come up. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the appellant was asked to explain the delay of 27 days in filing the present petition. It was found, however, that no application had been given for the condonation of delay. The impugned order is dated 28.11.2007 whereas the petition was filed on 24.03.2008, i.e., after a period of 117 days of the passing of the order. After taking the permissible period of 90 days in filing the revision petition, there is a delay of 27 days in filing the petition and no reasonable explanation has been given for this delay. In the interest of justice, however, the delay is ordered to be condoned. 4. On merits, it has been stated by the petitioner that the award passed by the District Forum was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The two-wheeler package policy was in the name of Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. whereas the personal accident cover is applicable only to the registered owner in person. No premium was charged for personal accident cover and hence the complainants were not entitled to claim the benefit of the insurance cover. Further, a juristic person obtaining two-wheeler package policy and paying premium only towards third party property damage by vehicle is not entitled to personal accident cover with respect to the death of the driver. 5. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is an admitted fact that the two-wheeler package policy was in the name of a company called M/s. Namo Alloys Private Limited. The basic premium as well as premium towards third-party property damage had been paid but the premium with respect to personal accident cover had not been charged. We fail to agree with the contention of the learned State Commission that f the policy was issued in the name of such firm, it squarely falls within the personal accident policy covering the risk of owner driver of the vehicle, the deceased Manish Sood An individual person cannot be treated owner of a Private Limited Co., a juristic person, and in such circumstances, deceased is not covered by personal accident benefit in the policy. Hence his parents are not entitled to get the benefit of insurance cover. The orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission are therefore, set aside and the present petition is allowed and complaint dismissed with no order as to costs.