Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Supreme Court of India)
A very important issue recently came up before the Apex Court wherein the Court settled the controversy as to whether concession made by any counsel would bind the litigating party.
The Apex Court in the case of Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in Civil Appeal No.1920 of 2021, a 3 member bench consisting of Justices NV Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant held that the counsel for a litigating party cannot throwaway legal rights or enter into any sort of arrangement which is manifestly contrary to law. The Court held that an erroneous concession in law can neither be binding on the client nor on the Court as there cannot be an estoppel against law.
The brief facts of the case are that a couple died in an accident. A claim was filed against the Oriental Insurance Company by the legal heirs of the deceased. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal made an award of Rs 40.71 lakhs against the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company filed an appeal against the said award. The High Court allowing the appeal filed by Insurance Company, in part, and deleted a part of the compensation awarded towards capitalisation of future prospects. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the claimants filed appeal before the Apex Court for redressal.
The Insurance Company opposed the appeal in the Apex Court & contended that the High Court’s decision in this case was a consent order. It was pleaded that the counsel for the claimants in the High Court had conceded and had agreed for reduction under the head of loss of dependency and under the doctrine of ‘ Promissory Estoppel’ the Appellants/ Petitioners cannot challenge the final award of the High Court.
It is relevant to reproduce the finding of the Delhi High Court which observed thus:
“The learned counsel for the claimants fairly concedes to the above submissions. She agrees that the loss of dependency may be re- computed on the basis of minimum wages payable to the workers in State of Haryana as in force on the date of accident (12.04.2014), the rate being Rs.5547.10p. She further concedes that in calculating loss of dependency in the case of death of Poonam, one-third may be deducted towards personal and living expenses and that there is no occasion for any element of future prospects of increase being added since there was no proof of regular employment.”
The Apex Court considered the legal consequences of the concession made by the counsel of the claimants and held thus:
“Any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throwaway legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law”.
Thus the Apex Court allowed the appeal & enhanced the compensation to Rs 33.20 lacs.
It is trite to refer to the earlier case of Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 wherein, this Court held as under:
“32. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions….”
The Apex Court in the case of Director Of Elementary Education, Odisha & ors . vs Sri Pramod Kumar Sahoo ((2019) 10 SCC 674
reiterated that the concession given by the counsel is erroneous concession in law and, does not bind the party. The Court held thus:
“11) The concession given by the learned State Counsel before the Tribunal was a concession in law and contrary to the statutory rules. Such concession is not binding on the State for the reason that there cannot be any estoppel against law. The rules provide for a specific Grade of Pay, therefore, the concession given by the learned State Counsel before the Tribunal is not binding on the appellant.”
Thus, it is no longer ‘res integra’ that concession in law are not binding on the party or the Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
