IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.10908, 11844, 12262, 12267, 12332, 12388,12626, 12632, 12633, 12634, 12656, 12657, 12658, 12703, 12704, 12746, 12747, 12759, 12937, 12938, 12939, 13031 and 13144 of 2011 and M.P.NOs.2,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,2, 1,2,3 and 2 of 2011 Erode District Bus Owners Association Rep. By its Secretary, 8, Bus Mahal, Erode -1. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10908/2011 Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary, No.19 Bishop Wallers Avenue (East) Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.11844/2011 Association of Management of Coimbatore, Anna University Affiliated Colleges, (Registration No.140/2008) Represented by its President, 119 Bhavani Road, Erode 638 004. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12262/2011 Federation of Associations of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary D.C.Elangovan, Having registered office at Old Door No.6A, New Door No.11, 20th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12267/2011 Federation of Associations of Matriculation Higher Secondary Schools, Represented by its General Secretary, S.K.Venkatasala Pandian, No.274/1, M.T.H.Road, Chennai – 49 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12332/2011 Coimbatore District Auto Workers Union (Affiliated with CITU) Rep. By General Secretary, Mr.P.K.Sugumaran, 940-A, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 002. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12388/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Lorry Owners Federation Tamil Nadu Represented by its President, K.Nallathambi, 87, Salem Road, Namakkal – 637 001. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12626/2011 Anand Institute of Higher Technology Rep. By its Chairman, T.Kalasalingam, Kazhipattur, Tiruporur TK, Kancheepuram District. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12632/2011 Kalasalingam and Anandam Ammal Charities, Rep. By its Chairman, T.Kalasalingam, Alwarpet, Chennai-18. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12633/2011 A.R.College of Engineering and Technology, Rep. By its Chairman A.R.Anub, Kadayam, Therkkumadathoor, Ambasamudram Tk, Tirunelveli District. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12634/2011 Villupuram District Matriculation Schools Association, Represented by its Secretary, R.Vasudevan, Villupuram. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12656/2011 Tiruchirapalli District Matric and Matric Higher Secondary Schools Federation, represented by its Secretary, Sri Vaijayanthi Vidyalaya Matric School. Srirangam, Trichy. ....Petitioner in W.P.No.12657/2011 Nagai District Matric, Nursery & Primary Schools Federation, Represented by its President, KV.Radhakrishnan Sri Vivekananda Matric Higher Secondary School, Sirkali, Nagai District ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12658/2011 Erode District Mini Bus Owners Safety Association Represented by its President, Karur Road, Erode. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12703/2011 Erode District Mini Bus Owners Association Represented by its President, Perundurai Road, Erode. ..Petitioner in W.P.No.12704/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kalaimagal Matriculation Higher Secondary School Rep. By its Correspondent P.Duraimurugan, Kalkurichi, Belukurichi Post, Namakkal District. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.12746/2011 R.V.S.Educational Trust, Rep. By its Chairman K.V.Kuppusamy, Trichy Road, Sulur, Coimbatore District. ....Petitioner in W.P.No.12747/2011 Confederation of Surface Transport Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary, M.Vasudevan, GNT Road, Chennai-10. ....Petitioner in W.P.No.12759/2011 PRM Roadways Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director. Sankari, Salem District. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12937/2011 M.Ranjitham ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12938/2011 K. Manickam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12939/2011 1.Sri Venkateswara Polytechnic College, Rep. By Sri Vijayalakshmi Educational Trust By Chairman and Trustee 2.Sri Venkateswara College and Education, By Chairman and Trustee both 1 & 2 having Office at Parasur Village, Cheyyar TK, Thiruvannmalai District. 3.Annamalaiyar College of Engineering, Medical & Charitable Represented by Srivenkateswara Educational Trust By Chairman and Trustee, Thiruvannamalai District. 4.Dusi Polytechnic College Represented by Annai Indira Technical Educational Trust by Chairman and Trustee ... Petitioners in W.P.No.13031/2011 Kalasalingam University Rep. By its Chairman T.Kalasalingam, Alwarpet, Chennai ... Petitioner in W.P.No.13144/2011 Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Rep. By its Chairman, Parishrama Bhavanam, 6-9-58 B, 3rd Floor, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 500 004. 2.The Tariff Advisory Committee, Rep. By its Secretary, Ador House, 1st Floor, 6A, Dubash Marg, Mumbai 400 023. ...Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.12632, 12633, 12634,12746, 12747, 13144/2011 3.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, 190, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. ...3rd Respondent in W.P.Nos.12633,12634,13144/2011 4.The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, 779 A, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ...3rd Respondent in W.P.No.12632/2011 5.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Oriental House, A25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110 007. 6.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, 24 Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014. ...Respondents 1 to 6 in W.P.Nos.W.P.No.10908, 11844, 12262, 12267, 12332, 12388,12626, 12656, 12657, 12658, 12703, 12704, 12759, 12937, 12938, 12939, 13031/2011,. 4th respondent in W.P.No.12633,13144/2011 3rd respondent in W.P.No.12746/2011 7.Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014. ...5th respondent in W.P.No.12633,13144/2011 8.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, 25/26, Prince Towers, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondents 7 & 8 in W.P.No.12262/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director, "Dare House" 2nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. ...4th respondent in W.P.No.12632/2011 10.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep . By its Chairman, No.E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 022. ...4th respondent in W.P.No.12634/2011 11.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office – III India Life Building, Trichy Road, Coimbatore – 641 078. ...3rd respondent in W.P.No.12747/2011 (7)12.BALAJI ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GE PLAZA AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA PUNE 411 006 13.ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN , ZENITH HOUSE, KESHAVRAO KHADE MARG , MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI 400 034 14.IFFO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. , REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 4 AND 5TH FLOORS IFFCO TOWER PLOT NO.3 SECTOR 29 GURGAON 122001 (HARYANA) 15. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3 MIDDLETON ST P.B.NO. 9229, KOLKATA 700 071. 16.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BLDG 87 M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 17.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN A 25/27 ASSAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 002 18.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 570 NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NEXT TO ROYAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE WADALA (WEST) MUMBAI 400 031 19.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45-46 WHITES ROAD ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI 14. 20 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK , NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER , 9TH FLOOR GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL 21 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI 14 22 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN DAR HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR , NEW NO.2 OLD NO.234 , NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 1 23 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 6TH FLOOR LEELA BUSINESS PARK, KURIA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400 059 24 EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 10TH FLOOR , EXPRESS TOWERS NARIMAN POINT , MUMBAI 400 021 25 AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 13TH FLOOR 14 K.G. MARG. CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110 001 26 STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NO.1 NEW TANK, ST VALLUVARKOTTAM HIGH ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 34 27 APOLLO MUNICH HEALTH INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BUILDING NO.108, 10TH FLOOR, DLF CYBERCITY GURGAON 122 001, HARYANA, INDIA. 28 FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 001 TRADE PLAZA, GROUND FLOOR , 414 VEER SARVARKAR MARG PRABHADEVI MUMBAI 400 025 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 310- 311 TRADE CENTRE OPP MTNL BUILDING, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX , BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400 051 30 .SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN E-8 EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA JAIPUR302, 022 (RAJASTHAN) 31. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN FIRST FLOOR THE FEMSICON SURVEY NO.28 NEXT TO AKME BALLET DODDANEKUNDI OFF OUTER RING ROAD BANGALORE 560 037 32. REHEJA QBE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN COMMERZ 10TH FLOOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK,OBEROI GARDEN CITY, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY GEREGAON (EAST) MUMBAI 400 063 33.SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE IL & FS FINANCIAL CENTRE 7TH FLOOR PLOT C 22 G BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI 400 051 34.MAX BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CORPORATE ADDRESS 2ND FLOOR , SALCON RASVILAS D-1 DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110 017. (30)35. L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP BYITS CHAIRMAN 601-602 TRADE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400 051 ....Respondents 7 to 30 in W.P.No.12759/2011 Writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent made in Ref.IRDA / NL / NTFN / MOTP / 066 / 04 / 2011 dated 15.04.2011 in which passenger premium is enhanced and quash the same. W.P.No.12388/2011: Praying to issue a 'Wsrit of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the Impugned Notification https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Ref.No. IRDA/NL/NTFN/MOTP/ 066/04/2011 dated 15.04.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same consequently forbear the Respondents from giving effect and implementing the Impugned Notification and enhancement of Premium for Third Party Insurance For Petitioners : Mr.M.Palani : W.P.No.10908, 11844, 12703, 12704, 12937, 12938 and 12939/2011 Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan : W.P.12332, 12267, 12656, 12657, 12658/2011 Mr.Kandan Doraisamy in W.P.No.12262/2011 Mr.S.R.Sundaram in W.P.No.12388/2011 Mr.R.Karthikeyan in W.P.No.12626/2011 Mr.K.Selvaraj in W.P.Nos.12632 to 12634, 12746, 12747 and 13144/2011 Mr.A.Muthuraman in W.P.No.12759/2011 M/s.Siva Associates in W.P.No.13031/2011 For Respondents : Mr.M.B.Raghavan for R1 and R2 Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan for R3 to R6 COMMON ORDER All these matters came to be posted before this Court vide an order dated 7.6.2011 by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. While W.P.No.13144 of 2011 was heard on 09.06.2011, all the other writ petitions were heard on 08.06.2011. 2.In all these writ petitions, the subject matter of the challenge is to the order, dated 15.4.2011 issued by the first respondent, i.e., Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short IRDA) constituted under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. By the impugned order, the IRDA had fixed the Motor Insurance Premium Rates for third party liability only cover. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were either associations of bus operators, lorry operators, trade union of Auto rickshaw drivers and associations of matriculation schools, self finance colleges and deemed universities. 3.The short question that arise for consideration in this batch of cases was whether the fixation of premium rates for third party liability by the IRDA was without jurisdiction and whether it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as well as ultravires of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938? 4.Before going into the contentions, it is necessary to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ refer to the impugned order in extenso for better appreciation of the facts involved in all these cases. The order reads as follows: "The Authority refers to the Exposure Draft on Review of Motor Insurance Premium rates for Third Party Liability Cover dated 4th January 2011, which was published in its website. Subsequently on receiving responses on the exposure draft, the Authority held series of discussions with the Transporters' Associations and Insurers. By virtue of the power vested in the Authority under Section 14(2)(i) of the IRDA Act, 1999, it is hereby notified that with effect from 25.04.2011, the rates of premium applicable to Motor Third Party Liability Insurance business shall be as set out in Annexure-I to this notification. The Authority has noted that Motor Third Party premiums were revised in the past at 4/5 year intervals. Such long intervals between rate revisions cast an avoidable strain on policyholders as well as on the insurance companies. Premiums need to be reviewed regularly depending upon the average claims which have been awarded by the various courts, frequency of claims for each class of vehicle and inflation amongst other factors. During the consultation process, certain stakeholders had also suggested that an annual review would ease the burden of adjusting to changes in premia consequent to changes in these financial parameters. Having regard to the above, after extensive statistical analysis of data for all classes of vehicles, the Authority has arrived at a formula for the revision of rates based on settled parameters as set out in Annexure-II. The parameters built into the formula are (i)average claims cost for each class of vehicle (ii)frequency of claims for each class of vehicle and (iii)Cost Inflation Index for the year of review. Based upon the formula as set out in the Annexure II, the premiums would be reviewed and adjusted annually. Insurers are advised to be mindful of the concerned expressed by vehicle owners about both the rates and availability of insurance. Considering the mandatory nature of Motor Third Party Insurance, insurers are advised to ensure that Motor Third Party Insurance is made available at their underwriting offices and that requests for insurance are processed expeditiously and policies are issued promptly. The Authority will treat any complaint of non-availability of insurance or use of methods to deny/delay the client seeking insurance cover, seriously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Insurers are not permitted to cancel the current insurance policies and issue fresh policies to effect new premium rates. This Notification as well as the enclosed schedule of premium rates shall be prominently displayed on the Notice Board of every underwriting office of the Insurers where it can be viewed by the public. This Notification is issued in supersession of the Authority's earlier Notification Ref:043/IRDA/De- Tariff/Jan-07 dated 23rd January 2007." (Annexures I and II omitted) 5.Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners contended that the IRDA cannot disregard the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 in the matter of fixation of motor insurance premium. The power is conferred upon the Tariff Advisory Committee which alone has authority to fix the premium. The present IRDA is a committee packed with officers nominated by the Chairman. The Chairman of the IRDA cannot revise the tariff as if he is the Tariff Advisory Committee and also ratify his own action as a regulatory authority. He also submitted that in respect of the goods vehicles, liability towards third party is satisfied from the basic coverage of premium. But in respect of the passenger vehicle, such third party liability is fastened upon passenger risk. Therefore, it was grossly unfair and unjust to have different methods of premium. The method of fixation of tariff should be based upon earning capacity of insured and not with reference to the cost inflation index or claim amount or frequency and expenses involved in servicing the motor transport business. He also further submitted that the passenger premium for third party risk had been increased by several folds, whereas the passenger fare in respect of the passenger vehicle was not revised in the State of Tamil Nadu since December, 2001. By enhancing the premium per passenger from Rs.235/- to Rs.380/- as per the impugned notification, there is 60% increase in the current premium which affects the livelihood of the motor vehicle operators. 6.Supporting the stand of the learned counsel, Mr.Kandan Doraisamy, the learned counsel for the association of School managements submitted that the schools are not to be treated like other regular passenger vehicles. The school buses are used only for fetching students in mornings and evenings and that many of the schools were run as charitable organisations without any profit motive. Some members of the association also do not even charge separately for the transport from the parents. 7.Mr.S.R.Sundaram, learned counsel for the trade union for Auto Rickshaw drivers contended that no proper hearing was given to their associations and therefore, the impugned fixation of tariff was illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submitted that the policy in respect of motor vehicles is covered by Section 146 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy can only be with respect of third party and there can be only one component of premium. Therefore, there can not be third party as well as passenger premium. Directing the motor vehicle owners to pay passenger premium was not contemplated and there is no jurisdiction to demand passenger premium. Once basic premium is levied by the insurer, the question of further levying passenger premium does not arise which would amount to double premium for the same vehicle. The revision that has been made was without reference to any class of passengers and no scientific data has been provided for. 9.Per contra, Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for IRDA as well as Tariff Advisory Committee submitted that the IRDA has taken pains to collect scientific data on the liability to be incurred by the insurers and also the quantum of expenditure that had gone up considerably for the insurer to meet the third party liability both due to increased volume of accidents as well as elaborate interpretations of Courts regarding accident policy. Extensive consultation was also done with the association of stake holders. The present fixation of premium is based on scientific data. It must also be noted that there cannot be any judicial review in this matter and the issue involved is purely contractual. He further submitted that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates two types of liability. Therefore, the premium had taken into account the entire liability arising out of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. With reference to fixation of premium for goods vehicle, it was based upon the weight of the vehicle, because in goods vehicle, there are no passengers allowed and it wanted to provide different rates of premium depending upon the size of the vehicle. The same was the case in respect of the three wheelers. He also submitted that neither the Insurance Act nor the IRDA Act contemplates hearing of every individual and the very hearing itself is contemplated by the judicial order. A cross section of the stake holders were heard. To prove the fact, they also produced the minutes of meetings that the IRDA had with the Transporters associations. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 10.Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for various insurance companies adopted the arguments of Mr.M.B.Raghavan and also submitted that unlike before there is no Government monopoly in the insurance sector and it is an opened up sector facing stiff competitions from foreign companies in this area. Instead of allowing the individual companies to deal with the insured, the IRDA being the regulatory authority as well as the development authority in the insurance sector was created so that there will be uniformity in the rate. This is very much essential because of compulsory insurance. The present premium fixed hardly taken into account the liability of the insurance company and most of the public sector companies are bound to subsidize the motor insurance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the income derived from the other insurances. If it is left to the market fluctuation while fixing the premium, then the premium rates will go up much higher. It is only because of the controlling authority in the form of IRDA, the insurance premiums are fixed at reasonable rates. 11.Mr.Vijayaraghavan also submitted that thanks to the interim orders granted by this court, some members of the petitioner associations were paying only the rate fixed before the impugned order, though number of transport operators have started paying new rates notwithstanding the interim order. But in case this court should hold against the transport operators, then they must be directed to pay the balance of insurance premiums. He further submitted that the interim order is only pending result of the writ petitions and it cannot have any effect beyond the outcome of the main writ petition. 12.In the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the petitioners have made out any case to interfere with the impugned order? 13.Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions, various stages of development with reference to the motor insurance has to be mentioned. Before the Insurance Act, 1938 was introduced, the law relating to the insurance in the colonial India was covered by the Provident Insurance Societies Act which regulated the Life Insurance Companies. The said Act was amended by Act 20 of 1928 primarily to provide collection of statistical information in respect of insurance business other than life insurance business carried on in India by external companies. Subsequently, Mr.S.C.Sen was appointed to go into the working of insurance companies to make recommendations. It is on the basis of the recommendations, the Insurance Act, 1938 was enacted. The Act provided for minimum initial working capital and principle of deposits were applied. All schemes of insurance operated by a society were subjected to actuarial examination so that unsound schemes can be eliminated. Periodical actuarial investigation was also made into financial conditions of the society. The increased powers of inspection and enquiry was also made. Even after the enactment was made, there were many insurance sales and service companies themselves operating certain insurance companies and banking companies got interlocked with the insurance companies to use the monies for speculative business. Therefore, the Central Act, 47 of 1950 was brought in to plug the loopholes so as to make it difficult for designing financiers to get control of insurance companies or to use insurance funds for speculative purposes and that provisions were also made to prevent interlocking of interests between the insurance companies and banks. 14.It is only in the year 1968, the idea of Tariff Advisory Committee was evolved and an amendment was made by the Central Act 62 of 1968. Part II-B provides for establishment of Tariff Advisory Committee, composition of the Advisory committee and the power to make rules in respect of matters regarding the said Part. Under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 64-UC, the power of the Advisory committee to regulate rates and advantages were also made. The Advisory committee was to comprise of the Controller of Insurance and a Senior Officer of the office of the Controller nominated by him as a Vice Chairman and not more than 10 representatives of Indian insurers elected in their individual capacity and not more than four representatives of the insurers incorporated or domiciled elsewhere India. The secretary of the Committee was an officer of the office of the Controller nominated by the him. This committee was entitled to discharge functions entrusted to it including if it deemed expedient, control and regulate the rates, advantages,terms and conditions that may be offered by the insurer in respect of any risk of any class or category of risk. 15.After these amendments were made, the Tariff Advisory Committee started fixing premium for the insurers of various types of insurance business. But, however after the amendment was made by the Central Act 62 of 1968 with effect from 1.6.1969, the entire general insurance business was nationalised by the Parliament by enacting the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (Central Act 57 of 1972). A public sector company, i.e., General Insurance Corporation and four of its subsidiaries were established. Under Section 35 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act subject to such exceptions, restrictions and limitations if any as the Central Government may by notification specify in that behalf, the Insurance Act 1938 was made to apply to or in relation to the Corporation and every acquiring company as if the Corporation or the acquiring company as the case may be were an insurer carrying on general insurance business within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the Tariff Advisory Committee continued to fix tariff in respect of the nationalised business of general insurance and there were no private operators. 16.When in the year 1990, premium was fixed by the Committee, the matter was challenged in various High Courts by the transport operators. It was contended that escalation of premium rates had affected the business so as to offend Article 19(g) of the Constitution and that while fixing rates, the operators who were stake holders were not heard. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Jt. Council of Bus Syndicate v. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125, in paragraph 8 had observed as follows: 8.After hearing counsel for the different parties we have, however, come to the conclusion that whether directly required by statute or not, it is appropriate that the parties who are affected by the escalation of the tariff rate should be given a