Madras High Court
R.Soundara Rajan vs The Insurance Regulatory And on 2 December, 2021
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.43369 of 2002,
17175 & 19568 of 2003 and 12043 of 2004
and
W.V.M.P.No.47 of 2009
and
W.P.M.P.Nos. 14089 of 2004 and 47 of 2013
R.Soundara Rajan. ... Petitioner in
WP/43369/2002.
K.R.Kishor. ... Petitioner in
WP/17175/2003.
N.Venkata Rathnam. ... Petitioner in
WP/19568/2003.
V.Sethu Raman. ... Petitioner in
WP/12043/2004.
Vs.
1.The Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority,
Jeevan Bharathi Building,
124, Connaught Circle,
Ground Floor,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 17
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
New Delhi - 110001.
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.24, Whites Road,
Chennai-600014. ...Respondents in all WPs
3.Association of Loss Assessors and Surveyors, Behar
Rep. by its Secretry
Mr. Chandra Shankar Prasad,
IC Friends Regency,
Hari Shankar Verma Lane
Boring Patliputra Road, Patna -800016.
...3rd Respondent in
WP/43369/2002 alone
4.Shri Satish Saran ...4th Respondent in
WP/43369/2002 alone
(R3 and R4 in WP/43369/2002 – Impleaded as per order dated
29.07.2011 in WPMP.No.394 of 2009 in W.P.No.43369 of 2002.)
Prayer in WP/43369/2002 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to
his categorisation proceedings dated 30.03.2002 (issued through
website) along with the consequential proceedings and list published
by the second respondent and quash the same as null and void,
illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents to permit
the petitioner to perform all classes of surveying / assessing work by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 17
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
allotting all categories of works on rotation basis and thereafter
proceed with the categorisation after framing a comprehensive
scheme or by way of conducting competitive examination.
Prayer in WP/17175/2003 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to
his categorisation proceedings dated 25.09.2002 issued by the 1st
respondent and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid
and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to
perform all classes of surveying / assessing work by allotting all
categories of works on rotation basis and thereafter proceed with the
categorisation after framing a comprehensive scheme or by way of
conducting competitive examination.
Prayer in WP/19568/2003 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to
IRDA/ Order/Surveyor & Loss Assessors reference categorisation
proceedings dated 30.03.2002 with the list issued through website,
and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid in so far as
the insertion of the petitioner's name is concerned and consequently
direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform all classes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 17
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
of surveying / assessing work by allotting all categories of works on
rotation basis and thereafter to proceed with the categorisation after
framing a comprehensive scheme or by way of conducting
competitive examination.
Prayer in WP/12043/2003 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to
his proceedings Ref – 'surveyor License No.53542 valid upto 2005
and your categorisation' dated 17.02.2004 and quash the same as
null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently directing the 1 st
respondent to categorise the petitioner under 'C' category in Fire,
Marine, Cargo, Miscellaneous Engineering departments permitting
to perform works under the 2nd respondent and other local divisional
offices of other Insurance Companies together with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Amalraj
(in all WPs)
For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
(in all WPs)
For Respondent 2 : Mr.S.K.Krishnamurthy
(in all WPs)
For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.D.Muthukumar
(in WP/43369/2002) for M/s Paul and Paul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 17
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
ORDER
The categorization of license to surveyors for the purpose
of utilizing their service by the respective Insurance Companies,
under the regulation are under challenge in these Writ Petitions.
2. All the Writ Petitioners are the licenced surveyors and
being engaged by various Insurance Companies for making
assessment and submission of report assisting the parties to form an
opinion on the loss and for determination of compensation or
otherwise to be settled.
3. It is not in dispute that license is being granted for the
period of 5 years as per the regulation and on expiry of the period of
5 years, the license has to be extended. For that purpose, necessary
applications have to be submitted by the surveyors along with the
particulars. The surveyors are engaged, pursuant to Section 64 UM
of the Insurance Act, 1938, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Section 64 UM of the Act contemplates procedures, wherein, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
stipulated that license has to be granted for a period of 5 years and it
may be renewed for a period of 5 years at a time. Thus, extension
cannot be granted beyond the period of 5 years at a time and the
grant of license is also a discretion of the competent authority, as the
language implied in Section 64 UM (c) of the Act is that "may be
renewed for a period of 5 years at a time, on payment of such fee,
not exceeding Rs.200/- as may be determined by the regulation".
4. Thus, the grant of license or renewal of license can never
be claimed as a matter of right and it has to be decided in accordance
with the prevailing regulations in force. Once a person is fully
qualified and satisfied the conditions and the qualifications
stipulated, then the authorities competent is empowered to consider
the application for license on merits and in accordance with law.
Even, renewal of license cannot be a right of the license holder and
even at the time of renewal, the authorities competent are
empowered to scrutinise the work or the performance of the licensed
surveyors. This being the scope of the Act, let us consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
grievances of the Writ Petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners mainly
contended that the categorization is causing loss of work as the
licensed surveyor is not allowed to undertake license in respect of
all the Departments. Once the categorization is effected, he is bound
to work in a particular Department as per the categorization of such
regulation.
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent
replied by stating that prior to the year 1999, the regulation was not
in force and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
was not in existence. First time, in the year 1999, Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority was constituted and
thereafter in the year 2000, Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors
(Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct)
Regulations, 2000 was notified providing for categorization on
24.11.2000. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
regulation there was no categorization of surveyors cannot be
considered, as the Regulatory Authority itself was not in existence
prior to the year 1999. First time the regulation was notified in the
year 2000 and thereafter the categorization was provided in order to
utilize the services of these licensed surveyors in a better manner.
7. In the year 2015, revised regulation was also notified and
the categorization continues, as the Insurance Companies are able to
utilise the services of the specialized surveyors for the purpose of
determining damages as well as the compensation in respect of
various departments.
8. Categorization of surveyors is a policy decision.
Categorization of surveyors are done with a purpose and object to
ensure the expertise in particular field by the surveyor and utilise for
the benefit of such field, which will improve the quality of work to
be done by the Surveyors. More so, such experts would be of more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
beneficial to the policy holders. It is needless to state that if the
surveyors are experts in a particular field and those surveyors are
engaged in assessing the damages and quantify the compensation
then, it will be of more beneficial to the policy holders. In as far as
the Insurance Company is concerned, they may get an opportunity to
consider the just compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the statute and rules in force.
9. Improvement of any system by the Regulatory Authority
periodically is undoubtedly imminent. Such improvements are
implemented in order to ensure that the system is being developed
for the benefits of the parties concerned, i.e., in the present case
policy holders as well as the Insurance Companies. This being the
main function of the Regulatory Authority providing for better
efficiency for the purpose of determination or assessment of
damages, this Court cannot find fault with the policy or
implementing such categorization, more so, in the matter of
assessing the damages and quantifying the compensation or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
otherwise.
10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue
relating to categorization was already considered by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.176 of 2002 dated
14.07.2008, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the
categorization is in consonance with the regulations and there is no
infirmity as such. The Hon'ble Division Bench has made a finding as
follows:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the
parties. This Writ Petition has been filed
challenging an order dated 22.11.2001 passed by
the learned Judge of the writ Court affirming an
order dated 20.08.2001, passed by the respondents.
From the said order dated 20.08.2001, we find that
insofar as the appellant is concerned, his
application for categorization as Surveyor was
taken up for consideration by the Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
Regulatory and Development Authority and the
appellant was categorized under 'C' in most the
Insurance surveys excepting under Category 'B'
where he was categorized as Insurance
Surveyor/loss Assessor. On the basis of that, the
appellant was asked to give an option for being
earmarked in three departments. The appellant was
also informed that if he refused to give his option,
he will be earmarked for three departments in
which he secured maximum points. We do not find
any error in the said impugned order. Therefore,
we cannot interfere with the order passed by the
learned Judge of the writ Court.
11. When the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
considered the categorization made in the regulation and affirmed an
opinion that there is no infirmity as such, in such categorization,
there is no reason to consider the very same issue in the present Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
Petitions.
12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
paragraph no.2 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench cited
supra which reads as follows:
"2. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant has got his license, but
his area of operation has been restricted to few
categories of Insurance. He wants to extend his
area of operation. We, therefore, give liberty to the
appellant to make an application to the
appropriate authority with the aforesaid prayer. If
such application is made along with a copy of this
judgment, the appropriate authority will consider
the same in accordance with the prevailing system
and under the relevant statutory regulations. Such
consideration should be made and final orders
passed within a period of three months from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
date of the application to be made by the appellant.
13. Even, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent made a
submission that, if any surveyor acquires specialization in a
particular field, then he is at liberty to submit an application along
with the particulars, in accordance with prevailing regulation which
will be considered by the competent authorities.
14. It is needless to state that any surveyor acquiring better
qualification or possessed certain expertise in a particular field of
Insurance or otherwise, then he is at liberty to submit an application
in accordance with regulation and in the event of submitting any
such application, it has to be considered on merits and in consonance
with the provisions of the regulation. Thus, the scope of the
surveyors is not restricted. It is for them to acquire more expertise
and submit an application for license. The said license is granted
only for 5 years, procedures for renewal is contemplated, even at the
time of submitting a renewal application, all such additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
qualifications or otherwise may also be specified by the applicant,
which has to be considered by the Authorities.
15. At the outset, better performance of the assessors are to
be ensured and that being the purpose and object of the regulation
and categorization of the surveyors, this Court do not find any
infirmity in respect of the regulation of the year 2000, as well, the
revised Regulations.
16. As far as the relief sought for in the present Writ
Petitions to quash the categorization is concerned, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioners have not established any
acceptable grounds for the purpose of interfering with the
categorization set out in the regulation and being followed by the
respondents for about 20 years and as per the submissions of the 1st
respondent, this categorization is working well for the purpose of
better assessment, as it is contemplated under Section 64 UM of the
Insurance Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
17. Further, Revised Notification was issued by the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India on
24.11.2020, revising Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India (Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors)
(Amendment) Regulations, 2020. The Regulation 12.1 states that
“Heading of Chapter V, “Categorisation of Surveyors” shall be
omitted. Therefore, the case of the petitioners are to be considered
based on the Regulation in force.
18. Thus the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
02.12.2021
shr/kan
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Insurance Regulatory and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
Development Authority,
Jeevan Bharathi Building,
124, Connaught Circle,
Ground Floor,
New Delhi - 110001.
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.24, Whites Road,
Chennai-600014.
3.Association of Loss Assessors and Surveyors, Behar
Rep. by its Secretry
Mr. Chandra Shankar Prasad,
IC Friends Regency,
Hari Shankar Verma Lane
Boring Patliputra Road, Patna -800016.
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
shr/kan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.43369 of 2002
W.P.Nos.43369 of 2002,
17175 & 19568 of 2003 and
12043 of 2004 and
W.V.M.P.No.47 of 2009 and
W.P.M.P.No.14089 of 2004 and
W.P.M.P.No 47 of 2013
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
