Insurance Claim Delay: Chhattisgarh Consumer Commission Upholds ₹10 Lakh Award in Truck Theft Case

News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 22

March 06, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited and upheld an earlier order directing the insurer to compensate a vehicle owner whose truck was stolen nearly a decade ago. The Commission found that the insurer’s prolonged inaction on the claim amounted to deficiency in service.

The case arose from Appeal No. SC/22/FA/366/2025, filed by the insurer against an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg. The district body had partly allowed the complaint of Vimal Sahu and directed the insurer to pay ₹10 lakh — the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle — along with ₹1 lakh for mental agony and ₹5,000 as litigation costs. It also ordered that if the payment was not made within 30 days, interest at 7 percent per annum would apply from the date of the order until payment.

According to the case record, Sahu had purchased truck number CG-07-CA-1171 with financing from Cholamandalam Finance Company and insured it with National Insurance Company for the period between December 10, 2015 and December 9, 2016. The truck was parked outside his office near Nandani Road in Bhilai on the night of June 25, 2016. When he returned the next morning, the vehicle had disappeared.

After searching unsuccessfully, Sahu lodged an FIR at Jamul Police Station on June 26, 2016 and informed the insurance company the same day. He later submitted the necessary documents and the keys of the vehicle to the insurer while pursuing the claim. However, the insurance company did not settle the claim for several years, forcing him to continue paying the loan amount and interest to the financier while also suffering financial and mental hardship.

Earlier, Sahu had approached the District Commission in 2017 regarding the claim. In 2019, the Commission directed him to provide all relevant documents and the vehicle keys to the insurer, after which the company was expected to decide the claim within 30 days. The complainant complied with the direction on November 19, 2019 by submitting the documents and keys. Despite this, the insurer failed to make any decision on the claim, prompting him to file a fresh complaint alleging deficiency in service.

The insurer argued that certain documents required for claim settlement, including a duly filled claim form, signed transfer forms, permit documents and original keys, had not been submitted by the complainant. It also contended that the insured had not taken reasonable precautions to safeguard the vehicle and therefore violated the terms of the insurance policy.

However, the State Commission noted that the insurer itself had acknowledged receiving the complainant’s letter dated November 19, 2019 along with multiple enclosures, including the vehicle keys, FIR copy and other documents. Importantly, the insurer failed to produce evidence showing that the keys submitted were not original or that the required documents had not been provided.

The Commission observed that the insurance claim had remained pending since June 27, 2016, the admitted date when the theft was reported to the insurer. Such prolonged inaction, the bench said, reflected a failure to discharge obligations under the insurance policy. The Commission also pointed out that the matter had reached the appellate stage after already going through an earlier round of litigation, highlighting the insurer’s continued failure to resolve the claim in a timely manner.

The bench comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) concluded that keeping the claim pending for years while raising successive objections clearly constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the insurer’s appeal and affirmed the district commission’s order directing payment of compensation to the complainant. It also ordered the insurance company to bear its own costs as well as the complainant’s costs of the appeal, quantified at ₹10,000.

Case Reference : Appeal Nos.: SC/22/FA/366/2025; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vimal Sahu