Per S.K. Gupta, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and meticulously perused the order dated 15-09-1999 passed by the Court in CIMA No. 124/97. 2. Petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order solely on the ground that since the Consumer Protection Act did not provide the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the said Act, it is the residuary Article, which would govern the appeal. The residuary Article 119 of the Limitation Act of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act No. IX of 1995 provides a period of six years begins to run when the intimation in respect of loss is given to or received by the insurer. We do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in view of Article 57 of the Limitation Act, 1995, which provides three years of period of limitation for filling a complaint on a Policy of Insurance, when the sum assured is payable immediately after proof of death or loss has been given to or received by the insurers. Article 57 of the Limitation Act in its plain language clearly contemplates that the period of limitation begins when the first intimation in respect of loss is given to the insurer. It is not in dispute that before the Commission, the complaint was filed after the expiry of three years of incident in question. It is, therefore, clearly deducible that for maintaining a complaint before the Consumers Protection Commission, the period of limitation provided under Article 57 of the Limitations Act is three years. In such a case, the residuary Article would not govern the period of limitation, i.e., six years, as vouched by Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. For what has been stated and discussed above, we are clearly of the view that no ground has been made out in the petition for recalling or reviewing the order dated 15.9.1999. As such, there is no merit in this review petition and is accordingly dismissed.