Car snatched at a wine shop, man loses his insurance claim too. Here’s how you can avoid such loss

If your car gets snatched or stolen today, one of the first calls you make tomorrow should be to your insurance company and not just the police. A recent ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) drives home this point: Delay in informing your insurer may cost you your entire insurance claim, no matter how genuine the theft was.

On February 24, 2026, a bench of the top consumer commission, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed the insurance claim of a Haryana resident whose car was snatched because he informed the insurer about the incident after over two-and-a-half years.

What happened: The case history

On December 6, 2012, Mahipal Singh Rana of Kurukshetra, Haryana, parked his Maruti Swift near a wine shop to purchase some liquor. When he came back, two unknown men pushed him, snatched his car keys, and drove off with the vehicle.

Rana filed a police complaint the same day. The police investigated the incident, arrested a couple of accused, and filed a charge sheet. But Rana could not identify the accused. The car was also never recovered.

After failing to recover the car through the police, Rana finally turned to his insurance company, the National Insurance Company Ltd, on February 17, 2015, which was almost three years after the theft. However, the insurer rejected the claim, arguing that the policyholder had violated a basic condition of the insurance policy: to inform the company immediately after the theft.

Rana filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kurukshetra. In January 2018, the district forum held the insurance company to be deficient in service.

Later, both parties appealed to the State Consumer Commission of Haryana. While Rana asked for a higher payout, the insurer challenged the district forum's order.

In June 2025, the State Commission overturned the district forum's decision. It dismissed Rana's complaint while ruling in favour of the insurance company.

"The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant could not identify the vehicle in the criminal case and that he did not cooperate with the Insurance surveyor as a result whereof the claim could not be established. This non-cooperation with the investigator was also taken as a ground to allow the appeal and dismiss the complaint," NCDRC noted.

Rana then approached the NCDRC with a revision petition, but after a delay of 155 days. He said that his lawyer was in the process of shifting his offer, which caused the delay. The NCDRC found his explanation for the delay unconvincing. Moreover, the top consumer panel dismissed his appeal as well.

The NCDRC agreed with the State Commission on the following points.

• Rana had not cooperated with the insurance surveyor.

• He had informed the insurance company nearly 2.5 years after the theft.

• The survey was conducted almost three years after the incident.

• In the absence of any information, the Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim

"It is therefore more than evident that the information to the Insurance Company, which should have been immediate, was given after a huge lapse of time and therefore in the absence of information to the Insurance Company within a reasonable time, prevented the Insurance Company from making any appropriate enquiry and investigation into the theft as alleged," the NCDRC said.

"In our considered opinion the mere lodging of a prompt FIR without intimation to the Insurance Company for 2 ½ years is a clear breach of the terms of the policy which require immediate information to be tendered," it further said.

How much delay in reporting is allowed

Some delay in reporting to the insurer may be allowed. However, it would always be better to inform the insurance company after the incident as soon as possible.

The terms of insurance policies require "immediate" intimation in case of theft. This allows the insurer to conduct its own investigation while the evidence is still fresh.

The NCDRC drew a sharp distinction between "some delay", which courts have previously excused, and the kind of prolonged delay in this case.

"The inordinate period cannot be termed as a 'mere' or 'some' delay to condone the same. The phrase 'immediate' intimation to the Insurer under the terms of the policy cannot be stretched so as to denude its meaning altogether. A delay of the nature presently involved therefore would amount to a breach of the terms of the policy and such a delay therefore cannot be brushed aside so as to apply the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner," the NCDRC said.

What you should know to avoid such a loss

Filing a police complaint and informing your insurer about theft of a vehicle are two separate, independent obligations. Doing one does not fulfil the other.

For anyone who owns a vehicle with insurance coverage, this ruling carries a practical lesson that cannot be overstated.

The sequence after a theft should be like this: file the FIR, and then, within hours or days, not weeks or years, call your insurance company.

In the past, courts have been lenient when delays are short and reasonably explained. For example, a four-month delay was excused in an older Supreme Court case; a five-month delay was forgiven in another. But there is a ceiling, and 2.5 years is far beyond it.

Here’s a quick summary of the story for you:

Key judgments cited in the NCDRC order

• Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company, (2020) 11 SCC 612: The Supreme Court clarified that the insurer company cannot deny a theft claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimation.

• Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724: The Supreme Court allowed a theft claim even though the insurer was informed four months after the incident, because the investigator had verified and confirmed the theft to be genuine.

• Jaina Construction Company vs. Oriental Insurance Company, (2022) 4 SCC 527: The apex court held that a five-month delay in intimating the insurer was not fatal to the claim, as the insurer had not disputed the genuineness of the theft.

• Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531: The Supreme Court held that courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse" when condoning delays in filing petitions.