Dismissed

George Mathew v. Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda

Kerala HC14 Sept 2017WP(C)/809/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, an advocate in the panel of the respondent insurance company, sought implementation of revised fee recommendations issued by GIPSA. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no legal right flowing from industry recommendations and that terms of engagement were satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs.

George Mathew Vs Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/23RD BHADRA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No.809 of 2009 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

GEORGE MATHEW, ADVOCATE, TC.11/30(1), DOWN ROAD, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87, M.G.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 001.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD,, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

¶12

3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-1, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., K.G.A.COMPLEX, PALAYAM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

WP(C).No.809 of 2009 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GENERAL INSURERS' (PUBLIC SECTOR) ASSOCIATION OF INDIA DATED 21.09.2002. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.05.2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.07.2008. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.12.2008. EXHIBIT P5 [FILED ALONG WITH THE AMENDED WRIT PETITION] TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.03.2009. EXHIBIT P5 [FILED ALONG WITH THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT] TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.10.2008.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF ICCC MEETING HELD ON 23.05.2002.

¶21

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶22

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C).No.809 of 2009-U

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner seeks implementation of Exhibit P1 from

¶29

the date on which the same was brought out.

¶30

Exhibit P1 is a communication issued by the General Insurers' (Public Sector) Association of India [for brevity “GIPSA”], listing out the recommendations made by the Committee for revision of fees of Surveyors, Advisors/Investigators, which also included the revision of fees applicable to Advocates under Clause 16 who defend the Insurance Companies in motor third-party claims.

¶31

The petitioner, admittedly, was a Counsel in the panel of lawyers engaged to defend the respondent-Insurance Company before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had also been conducting cases and receiving fees in accordance with the individual engagements entrusted by the Company to the petitioner. The petitioner by virtue of his inclusion in the panel of advocates also

¶32

WP(C) No.809 of 2009 - 2 -

¶33

undertook that he would not appear against any of the subsidiaries of the General Insurance Corporation. He asserts that this was on the basis of a Circular which stipulated allotment of cases on rotation. This Circular is not produced.

¶34

It is also contented that there was a discrepancy noted in the allotment of cases by a particular Divisional Manager which prompted him to raise a complaint against that Officer before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Company. Subsequently he received Exhibit P1 recommendations on which he pins the cause of action for the present writ petition.

¶35

After the filing of the writ petition, in March 2009 the respondent-Company decided to accept the recommendations; as per Exhibit P5 from 01.01.2009. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and sought for retrospective implementation of the recommendations as per Exhibit P1.

¶36

At the outset, it is to be noticed that there is nothing produced to show that the recommendations of the GIPSA has to be accepted by the respondent-Company. The recommendations, are only that and it is for the Company to decide as to whether it

¶37

WP(C) No.809 of 2009 - 3 -

¶38

has to be accepted. The respondent-Company has decided to implement it only from 01.01.2009.

¶39

According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Company, the Company has revised the fees as per Exhibit P5 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the GIPSA from 01.01.2009. It is for the Company to decide as to the date of implementation and Exhibit P1 is not directory. It is also argued that the petitioner now seeks for enhancement of the fees which were already paid to the petitioner for the individual engagements made in the cases. The petitioner cannot have any such right which can be addressed in an extra-ordinary jurisdiction as available under Article 226 of the Constitution. The terms of the engagement have been satisfied and there can be no revision of the fees already paid.

¶40

The averments indicate that the petitioner agreed not to take up any engagement against the Insurance Companies and also to the fees offered by the respondent. Later, he was aggrieved by the allotment of cases and raised a complaint in that regard. The petitioner then was not allotted any further cases;

¶41

WP(C) No.809 of 2009 - 4 -

¶42

when he raised a claim for enhanced fees based on a recommendation, from which flows no legal right.

¶43

The counter affidavit of the respondent asserts that

¶44

the recommendation of GIPSA, a Committee constituted by the four public sector insurance companies, was not implemented in the State due to the peculiar circumstances existing in the State. The fee structure followed in the State, due to the heavy losses caused in the motor portfolio, was one formulated by the Inter Company Co-ordination Committee (ICCC) and implemented in the State by Exhibit R1(a). The petitioner had received fees in accordance with such terms of engagement as has been stipulated for the other panel lawyers also, is the submission. The revised fees, as per the recommendations of the GIPSA was accepted later and applied only prospectively. The claim of the petitioner that regular allotment of cases on rotation was agreed to be made is also refuted; asserting that cases were assigned only looking at the professional approach, competence, effectiveness in setting up a defense, promptness in correspondence and so on and so forth. A more detailed

¶45

WP(C) No.809 of 2009 - 5 -

¶46

examination of the grounds can only cause further heart burn to the petitioner.

¶47

The petitioner has absolutely no legal right flowing from Exhibit P1 recommendations. The petitioner also had agreed to the terms of engagement and received fees in accordance with that. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and would

¶48

stand dismissed. No costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶51

vku/-

¶52

[ true copy ]

George Mathew v. Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Mathew v. Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R.Narayana Das Vs the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram

Sumathi Vs the District Employment Officer

Royson Joseph Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance

Father Manual Road Residents Association Vs Anuja.a.S

R.Santhosh Kumar Vs Smt.Mithra

Radha Vs the Land Tribunal