Jodhpur:<\/strong> An insurance company cannot refuse to compensate a bank for a dacoity loss by citing the absence of CCTV cameras or security guards when it already knew about these shortcomings before issuing the insurance policy, the Rajasthan High Court has held.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a petition filed by United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu, which directed the insurer to pay \u20b98.67 lakh with interest to Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank for the loss suffered in a dacoity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The insurance company argued that the bank had failed to follow RBI security guidelines, as there were no CCTV cameras or security guards at the branch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Insurer contended that the bank\u2019s failure to adopt these safety measures should absolve the insurer of liability for the loss caused by the dacoity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bank, however, pointed out that these facts were already disclosed to the insurance company in the proposal form. The proposal specifically stated that the branches did not have CCTV cameras, alarm bells or security guards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, the insurer accepted the premium and issued the insurance policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that if the insurer wanted the bank to comply with the RBI security requirements, it could have required the bank to do so before issuing the policy. Instead, it accepted the premium and provided insurance cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court therefore held that the insurance company was bound by the principle of promissory estoppel and could not take a different stand later to avoid paying the bank\u2019s loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHaving accepted the premium and issued the policy,\u201d the Court effectively held, the insurer could not later rely on the very shortcomings that had already been disclosed to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that the dacoity and the resulting loss were not in dispute. As the Permanent Lok Adalat had considered the relevant facts and passed a reasoned order, there was no ground for the High Court to interfere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the insurer to pay along with interest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Court Says Insurer Could Have Asked Bank to Follow RBI Security Norms Before Issuing Policy, But Having Accepted Premium, It Cannot Shift Stand Later on the ground that Bank Had No CCTV or Guard. Jodhpur: An insurance company cannot refuse to compensate a bank for a dacoity loss by citing the absence of CCTV cameras … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9706,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,29],"tags":[3054,3057,3053,3061,2416,3058,3064,1618,1234,3062,3052,972,471,3063,3055,659,43,150,3056,3060,3059],"class_list":["post-9705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-rajasthan-high-court","category-top-stories","tag-bank-insurance","tag-bank-security","tag-baroda-rajasthan-shetriya-gramin-bank","tag-cctv-cameras","tag-churu","tag-dacoity-claim","tag-dacoity-loss","tag-insurance-claim","tag-insurance-dispute","tag-insurance-liability","tag-insurance-policy","tag-jodhpur","tag-justice-anoop-kumar-dhand","tag-permanent-lok-adalat","tag-promissory-estoppel","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-legal-news","tag-rbi-security-norms","tag-security-guard","tag-united-india-insurance-company"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9705"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9705\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9707,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9705\/revisions\/9707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}No CCTV cameras or security guard<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Principle of Promissory Estoppel<\/h4>\n\n\n\n