Case: In Re: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors Vs.

in the year 2000, the 4 state-run, general insurance companies namely National Insurance Company Ltd, New India Assurance company limited, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, and United India Insurance Company Ltd, started functioning independently. 4 That the said insurance companies formed an informal association known as the General Insurers (Public Sector) Association of India, with headquarters at Delhi. 5. GIPSA was set up simply as a forum for facilitating consultations and deliberations amongst its member companies on matters of common interest mandated to it by them without having any administrative, supervisory, controlling or statutory authority over the public sector insurance companies. 6. That the GIPSA is not a public authority and neither is the same statutory authority/body.? 12. The High Court in its judgment has noticed three schedules of fee issued by GIPSA, they are: (i) Circular dated 21.02.2005 noticing that GIPSA had approved the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004; (ii) Circular dated 09.01.2009 issued in pursuance of approved and revised fees schedule by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.01.2009; and (iii) Circular dated 18.03.2014 issued by GIPSA approving the advocates/investigators fee w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The High Court itself has noticed that there are 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 dated 21.02.2005 of GIPSA regarding the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004. 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. The High Court has noticed the said fact in Page 15 of the judgment. The High Court itself at Page 16 noticed following:- ?The dispute, therefore, that now survives is with respect to the first Circular that was issued and according to the advocates, they are liable to be paid Rs.7500/- for each case irrespective of the fact whether the appeal had been filed by the claimants or by the companies; besides, there is no concept of half fee being paid at the time of filing the appeal and the balance fee at the time of disposal of the appeal even as per the Schedule of the Insurance Companies. Moreover, fee is also liable to be paid to the advocates who put in appearances before the Lok Adalats/Mediation Centers as also in cases where notices are accepted on the asking of the Court.? 13. From the above, 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 raised. The companies themselves in the reply had stated that they are adhering to the said circulars and there was no complaint on behalf of the empanelled advocates regarding non-adherence of Circulars of 2009 and 2014. The Public Interest Litigation was registered suo moto by the High Court in 2015. At the time of registration of the Public Interest Litigation or when the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2014, the fees schedule as enforced from circulars of 2009 and 2014 was very much in vogue and being adhered to. At that point of time, there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the dispute as to whether the fee structure as enforced by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.11.2004 should have been followed and advocates should have been paid accordingly or advocates were rightly paid the fee as per the modified decision dated 16.03.2005, which decision was taken in the meeting of all the four insurance companies at regional level. The issue relating to non-payment of fee of empanelled advocates as per Circular dated 01.11.2004 could not have been undertaken in the Public Interest Litigation, more so, when the same was replaced by subsequent circulars of 2009 and 2014, which circulars were adhered to by the insurance companies. Adjudicating the said issue by the High Court was wholly uncalled for in the suo moto Public Interest Litigation, which cannot be in any manner held to be affecting the case of the ?poor litigants?, which was the main reason for the learned Single Judge to direct for suo moto registration of Public Interest Litigation. 14. We, thus, are of the view that entertainment of the issue regarding payment of fee as per circular dated 21.02.2005 by GIPSA or subsequently modified by proceeding dated 16.03.2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 ought not to have been gone in the writ petition and directions by the learned Single Judge in the above regard deserves to be set aside. 15. We may notice that although various issues relating to entertainability of the suo moto Public Interest Litigation by the High Court, enforceable by circulars issued by GIPSA, the issue of payment of fee to the empanelled advocates, has been raised before us. Learned counsel for the parties have also in support of their submissions relied on various judgments of this Court, but for the purpose of this case, we need not go into the above issues and we leave the said questions open to be considered in appropriate case. As we have observed above that the writ petition, which was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation, the stand taken by the insurance companies that they are adhering with the fee structure enforced from 2009 and 2014, which was not even objected by the learned counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the advocates, was sufficient enough to close the writ petition without entering into the issue pertaining to the earlier circular issued regarding fee structure w.e.f. 01.11.2004. We have decided these appeals on its own facts, which may not be referred to and relied as a precedent since, we have expressly left questions open.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 12.09.2014 as extracted above indicates that learned Single Judge directed for suo moto registration of a Public Interest Litigation to look into the matter so that much relief could come about to the poor litigants, the reason, which mainly impelled the learned Single Judge to direct for registration of a Public Interest Litigation was a factum ofe of empanelled lawyers of the insurance companies when hearing of FAO No. 2604 of 2013 was fixed. The counsel representing the four insurance companies before the learned Single Judge brought their plight to the notice of learned Single JudgeThe High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when an element of public law exists. When learned Single Judge found that empanelled advocates are not appearing in the court, the learned Single Judge found that the said issue involved a public element, which ultimately affects the administration of justice and hence the learned Single Judge directed for registration of the Public Interest Litigation for the reasons as noticed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 12.09.2014. We, at this stage, are not inclined to enter into the correctness or otherwise of the order directing for registration of Public Interest Litigation. The judgment challenged before us is the Division Bench judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 09.12.2016, which was passed in the Public Interest Litigation disposing of the writ petition. We, thus, confine our discussions only to the said order, leaving the question of registration of Public Interest Litigation open, in facts of the present case12. The High Court in its judgment has noticed three schedules of fee issued by GIPSA, they are: (i) Circular dated 21.02.2005 noticing that GIPSA had approved the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004; (ii) Circular dated 09.01.2009 issued in pursuance of approved and revised fees schedule by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.01.2009; and (iii) Circular dated 18.03.2014 issued by GIPSA approving the advocates/investigators fee w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The High Court itself has noticed that there are 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 dated 21.02.2005 of GIPSA regarding the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004. It has come on the record that w.e.f. 01.11.2004, the fee was fixed as, 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/tofor appeals filed by claimants against the MACT awards and Rs. 6,000/for appeals filed on behalf of companies against MACT, which wastobe enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The High Court has noticed the said fact in Page 15 of the judgment. The High Court itself at Page 16 noticed following:?The dispute, therefore, that now survives is with respecttothe first Circular that was issued and accordingtothe advocates, they are liabletobe paid Rs.7500/for each case irrespective of the fact whether the appeal had been filed by the claimants or by the companies; besides, there is no concept of half fee being paid at the time of filing the appeal and the balance fee at the time of disposal of the appeal even as per the Schedule of the Insurance Companies. Moreover, fee is also liabletobe paidtothe advocates who put in appearances before the Lok Adalats/Mediation Centers as also in cases where notices are accepted on the asking of the Court.?13. From the above, 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 raised. The companies themselves in the reply had stated that they are adheringtothe said circulars and there was no complaint on behalf of the empanelled advocates regardinge of Circulars of 2009 and 2014. The Public Interest Litigation was registered suoby the High Court in 2015. At the time of registration of the Public Interest Litigation or when the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2014, the fees schedule as enforced from circulars of 2009 and 2014 was very much in vogue and being adhered. At that point of time, there was no occasion for the High Courttoentertain the dispute astowhether the fee structure as enforced by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.11.2004 should have been followed and advocates should have been paid accordingly or advocates were rightly paid the fee as per the modified decision dated 16.03.2005, which decision was taken in the meeting of all the four insurance companies at regional level. The issue relatingtot of fee of empanelled advocates as per Circular dated 01.11.2004 could not have been undertaken in the Public Interest Litigation, more so, when the same was replaced by subsequent circulars of 2009 and 2014, which circulars were adheredtoby the insurance companies. Adjudicating the said issue by the High Court was wholly uncalled for in the suoPublic Interest Litigation, which cannot be in any manner heldtobe affecting the case of the ?poor litigants?, which was the main reason for the learned Single Judgetodirect for suoregistration of Public Interest Litigation14. We, thus, are of the view that entertainment of the issue regarding payment of fee as per circular dated21.02.2005 by GIPSA or subsequently modified by proceeding dated 16.03.2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 ought nottohave been gone in the writ petition and directions by the learned Single Judge in the above regard deservestobe set aside15. We may notice that although various issues relatingtoentertainability of the suoPublic Interest Litigation by the High Court, enforceable by circulars issued by GIPSA, the issue of payment of feetothe empanelled advocates, has been raised before us. Learned counsel for the parties have also in support of their submissions relied on various judgments of this Court, but for the purpose of this case, we need not gothe above issues and we leave the said questions opentobe considered in appropriate case. As we have observed above that the writ petition, which was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation, the stand taken by the insurance companies that they are adhering with the fee structure enforced from 2009 and 2014, which was not even objected by the learned counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the advocates, was sufficient enoughtoclose the writ petition without enteringthe issue pertainingtothe earlier circular issued regarding fee structure w.e.f. 01.11.2004. We have decided these appeals on its own facts, which may not be referredtoand relied as a precedent since, we have expressly left questions open.