The Bombay High Court has held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for loss of income from private medical practice cannot be awarded to a government doctor merely based on an assertion that he was engaged in such practice.

The Court observed that the claimant must establish, through cogent evidence, that he was actually carrying on private practice and earning from it, particularly where government service may require compliance with rules or prior permission for engaging in private practice.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation to a government doctor who had sustained injuries in a motor accident.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain observed: "… nothing has been shown to indicate that necessary rules and regulations or permissions were not required from the government for doing private practice, nor anything has been shown which would indicate that the government permitted him to do private practice. In the absence of any evidence to show that he was doing private practice, a welfare legislation cannot be used for profiteering, and more so by a person who is engaged in the profession of a doctor and working with the government. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding of awarding Rs.6,60,000/- towards private practice is to be quashed and set aside."

The Bench further observed: "The onus is on the person claiming that he is in a private practice to show that in effect he was doing private practice and was earning from the said practice... This Court is concerned with welfare legislation and a person who has not led any evidence... cannot be permitted to take the benefit of welfare legislation for claiming the compensation without even discharging the basic onus."

Advocate Yogita Deshmukh Chitnis represented the appellant, while Advocate Shrishailya Deshmukh appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Background

The claimant, a government doctor, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and was awarded compensation of ₹11.71 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The insurance company challenged the award before the High Court, principally disputing compensation of ₹6.60 lakh granted towards alleged loss of income from private practice and ₹3.66 lakh awarded towards loss of salary during the period the claimant remained away from work.

According to the insurer, both components of compensation had been awarded contrary to the evidence on record. It argued that the claimant had continued drawing a salary throughout the leave period and had also failed to produce any material establishing that he maintained a private medical practice or earned income from it.

Court's Observations

The Court first examined the compensation awarded towards loss of salary during the claimant's absence from government service. It found that the Tribunal had overlooked the evidence of the employer's witness, who had categorically admitted during cross-examination that the claimant had continued receiving salary throughout the leave period.

The Court observed: "If the employer has admitted that the claimant was taking salary during the leave period and that has not been considered by the Tribunal, then in my view, awarding of compensation on that account is based on a material which is contrary to the facts on record."

Accordingly, the Court held that compensation under this head was unsustainable.

Turning to the claim for loss of income from private practice, the Court found that the original claim petition did not even plead that the claimant was engaged in private practice. The allegation surfaced for the first time during his examination-in-chief.

The Court noted that the claimant himself admitted in cross-examination that he had produced no documentary evidence whatsoever to establish private practice.

The Bench observed: "I fail to understand that if the claimant was doing private practice and was claiming Rs.10,000/- per month, then why a single piece of evidence could not have been produced. A private practitioner needs to have some establishment where the patients come for the treatment. Nothing has been brought on record to show by any documentary evidence that the claimant was doing private practice."

The Court further noted that it was not even the claimant's case that such practice was being carried on from his residence.

The Court emphasised that additional considerations arise where the claimant is employed as a government doctor. Besides proving actual earnings, the claimant must also establish that undertaking private practice was permissible under the applicable service rules or that necessary governmental permission had been obtained wherever required.

It consequently held that, in the absence of such evidence, the award of compensation for alleged private practice could not be sustained.

The Court stressed that while the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to compensate genuine loss, its provisions cannot be stretched to award speculative compensation unsupported by evidence.

The claimant relied upon the Madras High Court's decision in Mary Immanuvel v. Periyasamy (2017) to argue that courts should presume a government doctor maintains a private practice.

The Bombay High Court expressly disagreed with that view.

The Court observed: "With respect, I do not agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court. The onus is on the person claiming that he is in a private practice to show that, in effect, he was doing private practice and was earning from the said practice."

Conclusion

Holding that the Tribunal had awarded compensation contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court set aside the awards of ₹6.60 lakh towards alleged loss of income from private practice and ₹3.66 lakh towards loss of salary during absence from duty.

The Court directed that, after deducting these amounts, the claimant would be entitled only to the balance compensation together with applicable interest, while any excess amount deposited by the insurer should be refunded with accrued interest.

Cause Title: Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohidas Ambadas Chavan & Anr.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: