The central legal point established in the judgment is that insurance surveyors are required to carry out their professional work with due diligence, care, and skill, and with proper regard to technical and professional standards, as per Regulation 15(7) of the Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Regulations.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner is a licensed insurance surveyor and has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the circular dated 15.03.2017 (hereafter ‘the impugned circular’) issued by the General Insurers’ (Public Sector) Association of India to the extent that it seeks to impose a cap on the fees payable to insurance surveyors in respect of the survey conducted by them. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the fees fixed by the impugned circular is not inclusive of the cost incurred by a surveyor for physical verification of third party bills.

2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the impugned circular seeks to enhance the fees payable to insurance surveyors. A plain reading of the Schedule of fees indicates that fees for loss assessed upto Rs. 5 crores has not been altered by the impugned circular. However, the fees for loss assessed above the sum of Rs. 5 crores has been enhanced. It is also noteworthy that whilst the maximum fees payable to a surveyor prior to issuance of the impugned circular was pegged at Rs. 7 lakhs; the said ceiling has been increased to Rs. 25 lakhs. Thus, setting aside of the impugned circular would essentially reduce the fees to surveyors payable in certain cases. The petitioner, therefore, seeks an affirmative relief to the extent of setting aside the maximum ceiling fixed on the fees payable to surveyors.

3. It is also relevant to note that the matter of fixing the fees for conducting a survey is essentially an internal matter between the Insurance Company and the Surveyors. The said fees is not fixed by any statute. It is also doubtful whether the impugned circular in the present petition has any statutory force.

4. The thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the surveyors cannot be called upon to physically verify the bills of the third parties, as the fees fixed is not sufficient for the said purpose. After examining the averments made in the petition as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left in no manner of doubt that the present petition has been filed for an oblique purpose. The focus of the petitioner is not to assail the fees payable to the surveyors but to elicit a finding from this Court that a surveyor is not required to carry out verification of third party bills by visiting their premises.

5. This is also be clear from the relevant facts as stated in the present petition.

6. The petitioner was appointed as a surveyor to submit a report in respect of a claim made by a company named North India Coating Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘NICPL’). It is claimed that the said company was controlled by one Mr. Jha. NICPL had preferred a claim of Rs. 4,26,16,292.83/- crores with United India Insurance Company. The petitioner had examined/surveyed the aforesaid claim. The petitioner after assessed the loss at Rs. 1,38,32,240.59. It is alleged that Mr. Jha (and/or NICPL) had repeatedly made false insurance claims. It was further alleged that this was done in collusion with surveyors appointed by the Insurance Companies. In this regard, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had conducted certain investigations and has also filed charge sheets arraying Mr. Jha, Director, NICPL and one Mr. Munish Prashar (who was also a licensed surveyor) as accused. In this context, inquiries were also made from the petitioner.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not an accused in any of the charge sheets filed by the CBI; however, he has been indicated as a witness. Nonetheless, CBI made a recommendation to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to cancel the license of the petitioner as well. In view of the recommendations made by the CBI, IRDAI issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2015 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner had responded to the said show cause notice disputing the allegations. He, inte