Heard counsel for the petitioner.  The revision has been filed with a delay of 142 days.  In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that though the order of the State Commission was passed on 12.11.2009, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 15.5.2010 when it received a legal notice dated 11.5.2010 issued by Shri Hukam Chand Jain, Advocate on behalf of the respondent – Company.  The petitioner contacted his Advocate who appeared  in State Commission, but the counsel did not reply satisfactorily.  When the said fact had taken place and the name of the counsel  is not disclosed.  It is further stated in the condonation application that before the State Commission, the counsel of the petitioner did not appear and colluded with the counsel for the opposite party.  The counsel for the petitioner before us admits that there was negligence on the part of the counsel in not appearing before the State Commission.  In such eventuality, proceedings should have been initiated against the said counsel and more so since it is alleged that he was in collusion with the respondent – Company in the absence of such proceedings, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that counsel was either negligent or was in collusion with the opposite party.  It is further stated in the condonation application that certified copy of the order was applied on 12.11.2009 and it was received on 26.5.2010.  We go through the certified copy which is filed on record at pages 22-25 and it can be seen from page 25 that free copy of the order was furnished to the applicant on 16.11.2009 and counsel applied for certified copy which was issued on 26.5.2010.  Thus,  we do not find that proper and sufficient explanation has been given for condoning the delay of 142 days and obviously delay cannot be condoned.  The revision is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 

Even on merits of the case, we do not find that petitioner has any case for interference in the order of the State Commission.  The claim was settled at Rs.20,06,691/- vide receipt No.2654 as full and final settlement of the case. It is no where stated that the same was either accepted under coercion or there were any compelling circumstances on account of which petitioner was influenced by the insurance company to sign the discharge voucher for full and final settlement. The State Commission has very rightly dismissed the case even on merits after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. Etc. 1999 6 SCC 400.  Therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision.  The revision is dismissed both on the ground of condonation of delay as also on merits, with no order as to cost.