1. Leave granted. The correctness of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") in Revision Petition No. 3318 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013 is under challenge in this appeal, urging various legal contentions.

2. The National Commission, applying certain decisions of this Court referred to in the impugned order, dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation.

3. Keeping in view the object and intendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enacted by the Parliament for expeditious disposal of the consumer disputes, the belated revision petition ought not to be rejected only on technical grounds since it will defeat the primary object of the Consumer Protection Act. The revision petition is rejected by the National Commission on the ground delay of 139 in filing the revision petition by the Appellant without examining the sufficient and good cause seeking the application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay ought not to have been rejected, consequently, the revision petition also could not have been rejected, particularly having regard to the fact that the policy was issued by the Respondent-Insurance Company and the same was subsisting on the date of the accident occurred and the insured vehicle was burnt and the Surveyor of the Insurance company, who conducted the survey, submitted the report on this aspect. The finding of fact is recorded by the District Consumer Forum on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record. The relief granted by the District Consumer Forum is set aside by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission solely on the technical ground that the Appellant herein did not disclose the claim of 20% rebate as 'No claim Bonus' which could not have been put against the Appellant for the reason that the policy was issued in favour of the Appellant in respect of the vehicle which was burnt in the accident and the policy was subsisting. The National Commission has viewed the matter technically and rejected the revision petition, not entertaining the application for condonation of delay and without applying the catena of decisions of this Court wherein this Court has held that the courts and tribunals are required to examine the cases of the litigants on merits and not reject the cases at the threshold on technicalities i.e. on the ground of delay. The National Commission has failed to examine the sufficient and good cause shown in the application for condonation of delay, therefore, we are of the view that declining to condone the delay is not correct while exercising the discretionary powers keeping in view of the catena of decisions of this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the revision petition is required to be examined on merits by the National Commission keeping in view the finding and material evidence on record in justification of the claim made by the Appellant herein. With the abovesaid observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a direction to re-examine the matter on merits and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.