Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, he State Commission in FA No. 543 of 2005. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 09.02.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar in complaint case no. 166 / 2004 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, present petitioner, Dr. Bapuraro Bapuji Tanpure against the New India Assurance Company. Aggrieved by the said order, the New India Assurance Company filed the appeal which has been allowed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum itself was hopelessly barred by limitation in as much as cause of action for filing the complaint had arisen as far back on 18.11.1989 and complaint came to be filed only in the year 2004, i.e., after about 15 years from the date of cause of action and at least about 13 years after the period of filing given by the Section 24(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I have heard Mr. Suryavanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Not only that the complaint was filed after undue delay exceeding 13 years but even the present proceedings having been filed after 65 days delay. It is sought to be condoned by moving an application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The only ground set up in the said application is that this was on account of the procedural delay that the petition could not be filed within the prescribed period. In our opinion, it is not a cogent reason which will entitle the petitioner to exercise judicial discretion in its favour. I am not inclined to condone the delay in the present case and accordingly, dismiss the application. Even though, I have considered the legality of the impugned order and in our view having regard to the entirety of facts as noted by the State Commission in its well-reasoned order, there is no scope for any interference by this Commission. Revision petition is dismissed on both the counts.