JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. In this petition the petitioner Insurance company challenges the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby an award of Rs. 1,15,740/- was passed in favour of the claimant and against the respondents on the concession made by the counsel appointed by the Insurance Company. 2. From the order impugned dated 13.10.2015, it appears that the loss assessor had assessed the damages at Rs. 1,15,740/- in regard to the claimant's property and the counsel based upon the surveyor's report had admitted to the liability of the Company and made a concession accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the concession made before the Tribunal was without any authority and that no instructions had ever been given to the counsel to make any such concession or admit the liability to the extent of Rs. 1,15,740/-, as had been reflected in the award. 4. Petitioner's Counsel referred to a communication dated 02.12.2015, addressed by Advocate Karanbir Singh, who had been appointed as the Company's counsel to the Deputy Manager of the National Insurance Company. The said communication reads as under:- “It is submitted that captioned claim is instituted in the Court on 22.09.2012 and written statement was filed on 19.07.2013 in the Court, and case was dismissed in default on 15.02.2014 for non-appearance of claimant, but during this period, undersigned was not provided report of investigator or any feed back, but was made to understand that claims which were to be compromised and settle as per our admitted liabilities, in captioned claim, case was restored in the year 2015 to its original number and Presiding Officer asked the claimant counsel to settle to the admitted liability of Rs. 1,15,740/- without any interest, I was under this presumption, driving licence had been verified as till date of settlement, I have not been provided any feedback. 5. On a reading of this communication, it is clear that the counsel does not refer to any instruction having been received by him to compromise the case. In that view of the matter, counsel could not have made any concession, as the same was without any instructions or authority. No award could legally be passed on the basis of such a concession, which legally could not have been made. The same is, therefore, non est in the eyes of law. In that view of the matter, counsel could not have made any concession, as the same was without any instructions or authority. No award could legally be passed on the basis of such a concession, which legally could not have been made. The same is, therefore, non est in the eyes of law. The Insurance Company cannot be bound to suffer the liability made on that basis. 6. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on a decision of the Apex Court in “Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh” 2015 AIR (SC) 2867. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 13.10.2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-determination of the issues at an earliest. 8. Disposed of accordingly.