Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.S. SARON, LISA GILL, JJ.
Rajesh - Petitioner
Versus
Parmod and others - Respondents
CWP No. 6626 of 2015 (O & M)
Decided On : 09-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Mr. Vinod Gupta
Advocates Fee--With regard to matters referred by Court to counsels of Insurance Companies present in court--Certain directions issued.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.149--Advocates Fee--Liability of Insurance Companies--Matter referred by Court to counsels present in court--Held;
(i) Where the counsel appear for particular insurance company may be on asking of the court and in case he continues to represent the concerned insurance company and no arrangements have been made by it to engage be entitled for his for as per schedule followed by insurance companies for the payment of counsel fee;
(ii) In case a counsel has put in appearance on the asking of the court and counsel informs the insurance company and thereafter insurance company engage another lawyer then fee would be paid to the lawyer who has put in appearance for insurance company at the time of final hearing of he appeal.
(iii) In case half fee has been paid to the counsel, who was engaged, the balance fee would be payable to the counsel, who appeared at the time of final hearing of the case.
(iv) Where the counsel appears before the Lok Adalat or the Mediation Centre and matter is settled there, the counsel should be paid the same fee as it payable in the High Court in respect of the matter which are referral.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.149--Advocates fee--Liability of Insurance Companies--Nationalized insurance companies have joined a common body i.e. General Insurance Public Sector Associative of India (GIPSA) and the said body fixes the fee schedule for payment to the carpel--Though the said body is non-statutory but due to representation and participation by each insurance company in its decision making process gives an element of certainty and would also have a binding effect with respect to the decisions that have been taken--Circular once having been issued by GIPSA providing for payment of counsel fee to the advocates, same would not mean that at the local level, the amount of fee fixed could not be adjusted thereafter.
S.S. Saron, J.
The petition arises out of an appeal that was filed against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('MACT' - for short) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. FAO No.2604 of 2013. The issue in the petition now relates to non-payment or delay in payment of fees to counsel/advocates who represent the nationalized insurance companies i.e. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd., and defend them in this Court and before the Lok Adalats as also appear in Mediation proceedings in cases arising out of Motor Accident Claims. The grievance of the advocates who represent these Insurance Companies is that despite the said companies having formed a common body i.e. General Insurance (Public Sector) Association of India ('GIPSA' - for short) and the said body fixing the fee schedule for payment to the Counsel representing them in this Court, the due fee was not being paid.
2. A Division Bench of this Court in the present petition on 08.04.2015 passed the following order:-
“On 10.12.2014, learned Single Judge of this court while disposing of an appeal (FAO No. 2604 of 2013) filed by the claimant (injured of a motor accident) made a reference vide separate order to the following effect:-
“During the hearing of FAO No. 2604 of 2013, this Court issued notice of motion on 19.08.2013 for 21.01.2014, however, none had put in appearance for the Insurance Company - The United India Insurance Company Limited in spite of service, as a consequence of which an order was passed that on account of this non representation delay has been caused in disposing off the appeal. Thereafter not much assistance on behalf of the Insurance Company was forthcoming and as a consequence of which this Court was constrained to pass orders dated 21.07.2014 and when nothing could materialize, has led to the passing of order dated 12.09.2014. 26 Standing Counsel representing four Insurance Companies (1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 4. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) appeared before the Court and brought their plight to the notice of the Court of how the officers and officials of these Companies were circumventing the administration of justice for their personal ends and gains. It has been highlighted during the course of hearing that these General Insurance Companies are for obvious reasons manipulating the guidelines/fee structures approved by GIPSA and under that undue exercise the Counsel were being not properly assisted and thus, intentionally causing delay in the disposal of these matters before the Court and invariably were causing loss to the exchequer of these Companies which mostly are public undertakings. It has been highlighted with much emphasis how the fees and bills of the advocates, who had been representing the Companies in the matters, were not being paid since decades. This unholy nexus and trend assumes greater importance as people in general, who repose faith in promises of financial security made by these Companies in times of their sufferings and injury, were left high and dry. Thus, what was invented as a social welfare has become a tool of exploitation in the hands of these officers of the Companies who are out and out also trying to harm the advocates who are the officers of the Court. It has often been seen that the Counsel who do not toe the line are changed in between the hearings. Thus, the sufferings are increased manifold by the inordinate intentional delay of these Companies and lack of assistance to their Counsel. Since these issues of vital public importance are being faced by almost all the advocates present before the Court for these Insurance Companies, is an impediment and delaying process in the dispensation of justice. Thus, this Cour
