Heard learned counsel for petitioner, on admission. Registry has reported delay of 417 days in preferring revision petition for which application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner. Averments made therein, however, are that revision petition was preferred by petitioner only after dismissal of review petition by State Commission on 25.11.2009 and if this be taken, there was no delay in filing revision petition. In our view, however, filing of review application would not extend period of limitation, as even no data has been furnished in application for condonation of delay, as to when review application was filed by petitioner. Revision petition resultantly, merits dismissal on this score alone for inordinate delay in filing revision petition. However, we have gone into merits of case also. Factual backgrounds succinctly put are that husband of respondent having joined Sahara-10 - Option ‘A’ Scheme, made deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on 09.12.2000, followed by issuance of a bond by petitioner company. However, as ill-luck would have it, holder of bond died on 28.07.2002, following cardiac arrest and respondent nominee in bond, on sudden demise of her husband, informed petitioner – company and claimed benefit under the Scheme. Though correspondences ensued between parties, that failed to yield salutary result in the matter of payment available under the Scheme. A complaint eventually came to be filed with District Forum, which was resisted by petitioner company holding inter alia that since respondent failed to submit age-proof certificate and also Death certificate, disclosing cause of death of deceased, there was no break-through in the matter. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner company, accepting claim, directed petitioner to honour “death help” as envisaged under the Scheme, paying different sums described in order, along-with interest. Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- too was awarded. Appeal too, preferred by petitioner – company did not find favour with State Commission which too, upholding cause of respondent, noticed that exchange of communications made by parties did explicitly suggest respondent having made available requisite documents to officials of petitioner company. Contentions raised on behalf of petitioner company also about lack of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to adjudicate the issue, there being arbitration clause in the Scheme, was nicely dealt with by State Commission, while rejecting contentions raised on behalf of company. Contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner before us, however, need to be noticed. As per terms and conditions of the Scheme, sum required to be advanced under the Scheme on happening of death of bond holder, as “death help” is in form of ‘interest-free’ loan offered to nominee against personal guarantee for repayment. Provision of “death help” facility has been made in the Scheme with an object to help and rehabilitate the nominee after sad demise of bond holder, and “death help” facility, in any case, is “no dues” or “insurance amount”, as it is recoverable in monthly installments, for a prescribed period, after expiry of some period mentioned in the Scheme. What was urged before State Commission is also sought to be reiterated before us that since ‘interest-free’ loan is to be advanced to nominee of policy holder, award of interest by District Forum on the sum payable by petitioner was not envisaged under the Scheme. However, we find that State Commission has taken notice of fact that legitimate claim of respondent, notwithstanding furnishing of requisite documents, had been withheld by petitioner company for more than six years and it is in this back drop that State Commission did not consider it prudent to disturb finding of District Forum even in matter of award of interest. We too, having concurred with finding of State Commission, dismiss revision petition even on merit directing petitioner to make available receipts to respondent, as envisaged under the Scheme, in terms of direction of Fora below. No order as to cost.