TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other petitioners had not chosen to prefer any appeal. By a notification, copy of which was produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) 13288/2011, the 1st respondent in supersession of its earlier notification, Ref:043/IRDA/DE-Tariff/January-07, dated 23.1.2007 revised premium rates for third party liability only cover in respect of the motor vehicles with effect from 25.4.2011. Assailing Ext.P2, the Writ Petitions were filed. Ext.P2 was assailed on three grounds; (i) regarding the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to issue a notification like Ext.P2, (ii) denial of opportunity of hearing the petitioners/appellants and (3) the extent of the enhancement of the insurance premium. 2. The learned Single Judge having heard either side arrived at a concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall have the duty to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance business and re-insurance business. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (l), the powers and functions of the Authority shall include, - (a) issue to the applicant a certificate of registration, renew, modify, withdraw, suspend or cancel such registration; (b) protection of the interests of the policy holders in matters concerning assigning of policy, nomination by policy holders, insurable interest, settlement of insurance claim, surrender value of policy and other terms and conditions of contracts of insurance; (c) specifying requisite qualifications, code of conduct and practical training for inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders from time to time to the extent it deems expedient, control and regulate the rates, advantages, terms and conditions that may be offered by insurers in respect of any risk or any class or category of risks, the rates, advantages, terms and conditions of which, in its opinion, it is proper to control and regulate, and any such rate, advantages, terms and conditions shall be binding on all the insurers. Sub-clause (3) of Section 64U would show that the decision of the Advisory Committee shall be valid only after and to the extent it is ratified by the authority, the 1st respondent and that the powers of the 1st respondent is limited to ratification. According to the respondents, by a circular dated 4.12.2006, the 2nd respondent decide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the powers of the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent has only recommending power. Therefore, we agree with the learned Single Judge and find that the 1st respondent is the authority competent to issue the impugned Ext.P2 notification. 5. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.P2 was issued in supersession of the 1st respondent's earlier notification issued in 2007. It was done in review. So long as the authority to issue earlier notification, which is now reviewed and revised, is assailed, the present challenge regarding the authority and competence lacks bona fide. We are justified to conclude so because if Ext.P2 is annulled what would survive is the earlier order issued by the 1st respondent for which the appellants have no objection. If....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of hearing was denied to them. A similar dispute has come up for consideration of the Apex Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1616. The Apex Court, held at paragraph 7 as follows: "It is appropriate that the parties who are affected by the escalation of the tariff rate should be given a hearing. We agree that such a hearing cannot be personal in regard to every one in the field. That would be a physical impossibility. Therefore, on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States or Union Territory Headquarters. The Tariff Advisory Committee may have sittings at these places and wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es fixed is anyway exorbitant. No material is placed before us to interdict with Annexure-I tariff rates and to refix. The learned Single Judge also took it as a policy decision after a study conducted by the 1st respondent, in declining to interfere with the tariff. The learned Single Judge, in concluding so, had given reliance to the decisions in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1986, Bihar State Electricity Board v. Usha Martin Industries AIR 1997 SC 2489, Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [2002] 35 SCL 182 (SC) and Association of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2002] 3 SCC 711. Those decisions are relating to the Telephone Tariff Rates and Electricity Tariff. Going by the decisions ref....