Advocates Cannot Throw­away Legal Rights Of Parties By Entering Into Arrangements Contrary To Law: Supreme Court

first_imgTop StoriesAdvocates Cannot Throw­away Legal Rights Of Parties By Entering Into Arrangements Contrary To Law: Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK6 Jan 2021 12:13 AMShare This – x’Any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.’Advocates cannot throw­away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment disposing appeal arising out of Motor Accident Compensation Claim filed by heirs of a deceased couple who died in an accident.In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs 40.71 lakhs for both deceased to the claimants. Partly…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginAdvocates cannot throw­away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment disposing appeal arising out of Motor Accident Compensation Claim filed by heirs of a deceased couple who died in an accident.In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs 40.71 lakhs for both deceased to the claimants. Partly allowing the appeal filed by Insurance Company, the High Court reversed the addition of future prospects. The claimants filed appeal before the Apex Court.The insurance company, opposing the appeal, contended that the High Court’s decision in this case was a consent order, and that the counsel for the claimants had conceded to a lower computation under the head of loss of dependency, which thus cannot be challenged in appeal proceedings. In this case, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment had 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.””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”, the bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed.Taking note of facts of the case, the bench further observed that the claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. The court observed: “It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased’s dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant­ claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent ­insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings”Allowing the appeal, the bench enhanced the compensation to Rs 33.20 lakhs. Also Read: Motor Accident Compensation- Future Prospects Can Be Granted Even In Cases Pertaining To Notional Income: Supreme CourtAlso Read: Conception That House Makers Do Not “Work” Or That They Do Not Add Economic Value To The Household Is A Problematic Idea Case: Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.19­20 of 2021]Coram:  Justices NV Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya KantCitation:  LL  2021 SC 3Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *