PUNARVASU CHIKITSALAY Vs. MANDAR SHARAD AKATNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 10.8.2016 which reads as under: -

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant state the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the issue pertaining to the limitation for filing written statement under Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been referred to the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the State Commission.

(3.) The issue raised by the appellant/opposite party is no more res-integra. Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 4.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of limitation under Section 13 (1) & (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held as under: -