UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus -

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
(Civil Appeal No. 5953 of 2018)
 JULY 02, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation – Suo moto invocation – Payment
of fees to empanelled advocates – FAO pertaining to motor accident
matter – Non-appearance of the empanelled lawyers of the Insurance
Companies – Counsel representing the insurance companies
bringing their plight to the notice of the Single Judge highlighting
that these insurance companies were manipulating guidelines/fee
structures approved by GIPSA – Single Judge treating the issue as
of public importance, passed an order for suo moto registration of
Public Interest Litigation – Reference placed before the Division
Bench – Issuance of directions by the court to the Insurance
Companies to adhere to the schedules framed by GIPSA and make
payments to all advocates to whom fee was due and payable –
Challenge to, by the Insurance Companies – On appeal, held: High
Court noticed schedules of fee issued by GIPSA, Circular of 2004,
2009 and 2014; and that the issue was only with regard to Circular
of 2004 – When PIL was registered, the fees schedule as enforced
from circulars of 2009 and 2014 was very much in vogue and being
adhered to – Entertainment of the issue regarding payment of fee
as per circular of 2004 by GIPSA or subsequently modified by
proceeding dated 16.03.2005 ought not to have been gone in the
writ petition – Furthermore, said issue had no bearing on the case
of the poor litigants, which was the main reason for the Single Judge
to direct for suo moto registration of PIL – Moreso, Circular of
2004 was replaced by subsequent circulars of 2009 and 2014 – In
view thereof, direction of High Court directing insurance companies
to adhere to fees schedule issued by GIPSA of 2004 set aside –
However, any payment of fee made as per said Circular to be treated
as final – Insurance companies to adhere to the schedule framed
by GIPSA of 2009 and 2014.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 816
816
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court exercises its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 when an element of public law exists.
When the Single Judge found that empanelled advocates are not
appearing in the court, the Single Judge found that the said issue
involved a public element, which ultimately affects the
administration of justice and hence the Single Judge directed for
registration of the Public Interest Litigation for the reasons as
noticed by the Single Judge in his order. This Court is not inclined
to enter into the correctness or otherwise of the order directing
for registration of Public Interest Litigation. The judgment
challenged before this Court is the Division Bench judgment
which was passed in the Public Interest Litigation disposing of
the writ petition. Thus, discussions are confined only to the said
order, leaving the question of registration of Public Interest
Litigation open, in facts of the present case. [Para 10][825-B-D]
1.2 The High Court in its judgment noticed three schedules
of fee issued by GIPSA: Circular dated 21.02.2005 noticing that
GIPSA had approved the revised fees schedule of advocates/
investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004; Circular dated 09.01.2009 issued
in pursuance of approved and revised fees schedule by GIPSA
w.e.f. 01.01.2009; and Circular dated 18.03.2014 issued by GIPSA
approving the advocates/investigators fee w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The
High Court itself noticed that there were no issues with regard
to Circulars issued with regard to fee structure enforced from
2009 and 2014. The High Court noticed that the only issue is
with regard to Circular of 2004. It has come on the record that
w.e.f. 01.11.2004, the fee was fixed as Rs.7,500/-, which was not
adopted in toto by the companies and based on Inter Company
Coordination Committee meeting dated 16.03.2005 of the
Chandigarh Regional Officers, fee was revised reducing from
Rs.7,500/- to Rs.5,000/- for appeals filed by claimants against the
MACT awards and Rs. 6,000/- for appeals filed on behalf of
companies against MACT, which was to be enforced w.e.f.
01.04.2005. [Para 12][826-F-H; 827-A-C]
1.3 It is clear that in so far as the payment of fee as per
Circular issued of 2009 and 2014 is concerned, there was no issue
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
raised. The companies themselves in the reply had stated that
they are adh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.