##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:40361]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15588/2026 CNR: RJHC010705962026 | URN: CW / 28091U / 2026

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Station Road, Churu.

2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Old RIICO, Industrial Area, Parbatpura, Ajmer.

----Petitioners Versus Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank, Through Chief Manager, Head Office, 2343, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhandari Mr. Dinesh Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/08/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 17.03.2026, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu (for short ‘the PLA’), whereby the claim petition submitted by the respondent-Bank has been allowed and the petitioner-Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 8,67,230/- to the respondent-Bank i.e. the loss suffered by the respondent-

Bank along with interest.

2. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-Bank took an insurance policy from the petitioner-Insurance company but the respondent-Bank failed to follow the security guidelines, as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short ‘the RBI’). He submits that neither CCTV cameras were installed inside and outside the bank premises, nor any security guard was posted therein. Counsel submits that the requisite safety measures have not been adopted by the respondent-Bank to avoid happening of any mishap or untoward incidents. Counsel submits that until and unless the security guidelines, so framed by the RBI, are followed by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner-insurance company cannot be held liable and responsible for the amount of loss suffered by the respondent-Bank, in case of any incident of theft/robbery/ dacoity, on account of fault of the respondent-Bank. Counsel submits that all these facts were totally overlooked by the PLA, while passing the impugned award.

3. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International reported in (2014) 1 SCC 686; and Muthoot Finance Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.8364/2024 decided vide order dated 02.08.2024.

4. Counsel submits that identical issue came up before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the NCDRC”) in the case of Muthoot Finance Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited in Consumer Case No.3331 of 2017, wherein also the security guidelines, so framed by the RBI, were not followed, no guard was posted in the bank premises and CCTV cameras were also not installed when the incident of dacoity took place at the bank premises. Counsel submits that since there was clear violation of guidelines of RBI, therefore, the claim so made by the complainant-Bank therein was rejected by the NCDRC vide order dated 02.04.2024. He further submits that aggrieved by the order, passed by the NCDRC, the complainant- finance company-Muthoot Finance Limited submitted a Civil Appeal No.8364/2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court but the same was rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.08.2024, thereby upholding the order dated 02.04.2024, passed by the NCDRC. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank opposed the arguments, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that prior to obtaining the insurance from the petitioner-Insurance Company, the respondent-Bank had disclosed to the petitioner-Insurance Company that neither any guard/gunman has been posted at the respondent-Bank nor there is CCTV installation in the branch of the respondent-Bank. Couns