Aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal nos. 666 670 / 2011 and MSC No. 99 / 2011, the original complainants have filed these petitions. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeals primarily on the ground that there was a delay of about 25 days in filing the appeals before the State Commission. The appeals were filed against the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaints on the ground that the complaints so filed were barred by limitation as prescribed under section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr. Sulabh Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Joy Basu, counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. It is true that if we compute the period of limitation from the date of accident the complaints so filed would prima-facie barred by limitation but counsel for the petitioners submits that in these cases the complainants had a running and continuing cause of action because despite claims having been lodged by the complainants, the opposite party insurance company has neither settled nor repudiated the claim up till the date of filing of the complaints. Mr. Basu, on the other hand contends that the non-repudiation of the claim does not amount to continuing cause of action. This Commission has been of the consistent view that in cases relating to the settlement of insurance claims, the repudiation of the claim or its non-repudiation are relevant factors for the purpose of deciding the question of limitation for filing the complaints. Cases where claims are repudiated after a long duration, this Commission has held that the date of repudiation will be the date for computation of limitation for filing the complaint because it is at that point of time that the insured is informed of the intention of the insurance company to repudiate the claim and the reasons for doing so. 3. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of these cases, the complainants ought not to have been dismissed as barred by limitation and the complainants were entitled to adjudication of their claims on merits. 4. In the result the revision petitions are partly allowed. The orders passed by the Fora below dismissing the appeals and the complaints on the ground of limitation are hereby set aside. Complaints are remitted back to the board of the concerned District Forum for adjudication in accordance with law as expeditiously as it may be practicable. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 2.07.2012.