This petition is directed against the order dated 20.06.08 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 1216/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on twin grounds, it being highly belated as also that there was no merit in the appeal and confirmed the finding of the District Forum about dismissing the complaint. ..2.. The petition has been filed after delay of 67 days. Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed setting up certain grounds in order to explain the said delay but we do not find them satisfactory so as to entitle the petitioner for exercise of discretion in his favour. While doing so, we may notice that the conduct of the petitioner even before the State Commission was adversely commented upon by the State Commission inasmuch it was noted that the appeal was filed after delay of 265 days which the State Commission refused to condone for the valid reasons given in the order. We also decline the prayer for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the order on the ground that the insurance company failed to establish that the insured vehicle in question was in fact being used for commercial purposes and had been given on hire at the relevant time when it met with an accident. In our view, this submission has no merit because the insurance company had produced cogent evidence on record in order to establish that there was breach of conditions of the policy inasmuch as the insured had given the insured vehicle on hire to a certain T.S. Shivashankarappa for travel from Bangalore to Shimoga in order to ..3.. attend his ailing father. The concurrent finding of the Fora below appear to be based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material brought on record and the view taken is in consonance with the settled legal position. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.