1. There is a delay 287 days in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the State Commission. 2. The State Commission observed: e observe from the record that the Petitioner/Opposite Party represented by Sri K. S. Suresh Kumar, Advocate before the District Forum. The matter was disposed of on contest. The Chief contention of the Petitioner/Appellant is that the Counsel who was looking after the matter before the District forum kept them in dark and that they were not aware if the proceedings and the status of the case. They came to know about the disposal of the matter in 30.10.2012 when the Centralized Law Firm entrusted the matter to some other advocate, as the Counsel who was on record did not respond to their letter dated 18.06.2013. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner/Appellant did not file the affidavit of the concerned advocate who had obtained the certified copy of the order nor any documentary evidence to show the action taken against the advocate on record who has not communicated the orders of the District Forum. It is settled law that the Principal is liable for the acts of the Agent. 3. The State Commission has placed reliance on the various authorities, which are as under: a. R.B. Ramalingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108. b. Ram lal and ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. c. Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459. d. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and others [(2010) 6 SCC 786]. e. 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC)- Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. f. Cicily Kallaeackal Vs. Vehicle Factory reported in IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) 1. g. Esha Battacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. Reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 737 SC decided on 13.09.2013. 4. The Appeal is barred by time before the State commission and the State Commission has rightly dismissed the Appeal on the ground of delay. 5. This huge delay cannot be condoned and therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed.