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.
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 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 PIL was registered suo moto by the High Court in 2015. At the time of registration of the PIL or when the order passed by the Single Judge, 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 PIL, 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 PIL, which cannot be in any manner held to be affecting the case of the “poor litigants”, which was the main reason for the Single Judge to direct for suo moto registration of PIL. [Para 13][827-E-H; 828A-B]
1.4 The 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 wef 01.04.2005 ought not to have been gone in the writ petition and directions by the Single Judge is set aside. [Para 14][828-C-D]
1.5 The 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, are left open to be considered in appropriate case. 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 counsel, 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. [Para 15][828-D-F]
1.6 The judgment of the High Court is modified in the following manner:(i) The direction of High Court directing insurance companies to adhere to fees schedule issued by GIPSA dated 21.02.2005 wef 01.11.2004 is set aside. However, it is made clear that any payment of fee made as per said Circular dated 21.02.2005 to be treated as final and not to be re-opened.
(ii) The insurance companies to adhere to the schedule framed by GIPSA ie 01.01.2009 and 01.04.2014, and fee wherever payable to be paid and balance wherever payable to be paid as admitted by insurance companies themselves before the High Court.
(iii) The direction issued by the High Court regarding payment of interest is set aside. [Para 16][828-G-H; 829-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.