This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 141 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given to file the Revision Petition.  The explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay is that the Revision Petition could not be filed in time because his clerk, who was assigned the work of filing the Revision Petition, had to rush to his native place as his father was not well.  The date on which the clerk left for his native place and the date on which he came back has not been mentioned in the application.  Even after the return of the clerk, there is considerable delay in filing the Revision Petition, which has not been explained.

          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 141 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

          We have considered the Revision Petition on merits as well.  Accident took place on 7.3.2004 and the respondent insurance company was informed about the accident on 30.5.2005, i.e., after a delay of more than one year, which deprived the respondent from investigating about the accident.  Further, the State Commission has also expressed its doubt about the bona fide of the claim, as the petitioner failed to prove the claim by producing any medical evidence.  We do not find any merit in this Revision Petition.

          Consequently, Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits.