JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present.
2. The State Commission dismissed the appeal because it was delayed by 67 days. The petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. We have perused that application. The delay has been explained in para 3 of the application which runs as follows: “3. That the petitioner lives in a far off place in Punjab and it took him time and effort, besides organizing his financial resources to inquire about and engage a counsel in Delhi for filing this Revision Petition. He engaged the present counsel in the second week of April 2014. Thereafter, the matter was prepared and thereafter the petition was sent for signatures of the petitioner, which process took some time.” This is not a valid ground. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The petitioner should have consulted some advocate and filed the appeal in time before the State Commission. 3. The view is supported by the Apex Court authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. -3- 4. The latest view of this Commission in a case of Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., revision petition No. 985 of 2013 was that 13 days delay was not condoned. An SLP was filed before the Supreme Court with the same cause title through Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 37183 of 2013. The Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the special leave petition on 17.12.2013. In other case also, the delay of 77 days was not condoned by this Commission, which was upheld by the Apex Court reported in M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013; Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on19.11.2013. 5. Moreover, there is further delay in filing this revision petition by 25 days. Warning bells should have rung but the petitioner was so negligent that he delayed the filing of revision petition by 25 days. 6. The case is barred by time. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. 7. Now let us advert to the merits of the case. The vehicle was stolen during the night falling between 16.8.2009 and 17.8.2009. The FIR was -4- lodged on 5.9.2009. Intimation was given to the respondent/opposite party on 8.9.2009. There was sufficient delay. The delay in informing the insurance company was fatal as it deprived the insurance company on its legal right to interfere into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 by the Apex Court; New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Trilochan Jane- first appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided by a bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, on 9.12.2009 and Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, revision petition No. 3183 of 2011 decided on 12.7.2012 by a bench of this Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on both counts. | 
