Prepared on the basis of the uploaded Bombay High Court judgment.
Bombay High Court Reduces Motor Accident Compensation, Holds Government Doctor Cannot Claim Private Practice Income Without Proof
Facts
The appeal was filed by Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award dated 4 July 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane.
The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹11,71,394 to the claimant, Dr. Rohidas Ambadas Chavan, for injuries sustained in a motor accident.
The Insurance Company challenged two specific components of the award:
- ₹6,60,000 awarded towards loss of income from private practice.
- ₹3,66,586 awarded towards loss of income due to absence from duty.
The claimant was a doctor working with a government hospital. He claimed that because of the accident, he could not attend duty for 11 months and also suffered loss of income from private practice.
The Insurance Company contended that these amounts were wrongly awarded because the claimant had drawn salary during the leave period and had produced no documentary evidence to prove any private practice.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding ₹3,66,586 towards loss of income due to absence from duty when the claimant had received salary during the leave period.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding ₹6,60,000 towards alleged loss of income from private practice without documentary proof.
- Whether private practice by a government doctor could be presumed without evidence.
- Whether welfare legislation can be used to award compensation without the claimant discharging the basic burden of proof.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded compensation for loss of salary during absence from duty.
It submitted that the employer’s witness, Ms. Usha Kanchan, had admitted in cross-examination that the claimant had taken salary during the leave period. Therefore, there was no actual loss of salary and compensation on that count could not have been granted.
The Insurance Company also challenged the award of ₹6,60,000 towards alleged loss of income from private practice.
It argued that the claimant had not pleaded in his claim application that he was earning additional income from private practice. This claim was raised for the first time in examination-in-chief.
It was further submitted that the claimant had admitted in cross-examination that he had not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was carrying on private practice.
The Insurance Company argued that in the absence of proof of private practice, income from such practice could not be presumed merely because the claimant was a doctor.
Respondent’s Arguments
The claimant supported the Tribunal’s award and contended that compensation granted towards loss of income from private practice was justified.
He relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Mary Immanuvel v. Periyasamy, where it was argued that a government doctor may be presumed to have private practice.
The claimant sought to sustain the Tribunal’s finding that he was entitled to compensation both for loss of salary during absence from duty and loss of income from private practice.
Analysis of the Law
The Bombay High Court held that compensation under motor accident law is intended to compensate actual loss suffered by the claimant. It cannot be granted on assumptions contrary to evidence on record.
On the issue of absence from duty, the Court held that if the claimant had already received salary during the leave period, he could not again claim compensation for loss of salary for the same period.
The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to correctly consider the evidence of the employer’s witness, who had admitted that the claimant received salary during the leave period.
On the issue of private practice, the Court held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove that he was actually carrying on private practice and earning income from it.
The Court held that a claim of ₹10,000 per month from private practice could not be accepted without any supporting evidence. A private practitioner would ordinarily have some establishment, record, patients, receipts, permissions or other material to show that such practice existed.
The Court also noted that the claimant was a government doctor. Therefore, it was necessary to show whether private practice was legally permissible and whether any permission from the government was required or obtained.
Precedent Analysis
The claimant relied on Mary Immanuvel v. Periyasamy, a Madras High Court decision, to argue that private practice of a government doctor should be presumed.
The Bombay High Court respectfully disagreed with this view.
The Court held that no such presumption can be drawn. The onus remains on the claimant to prove that he was actually doing private practice and earning income from it.
The Court further held that where the claimant is a government doctor, the Court must also consider whether rules, regulations or permissions allowed such private practice. These requirements cannot be ignored while awarding compensation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding on loss of income due to absence from duty was perverse because it ignored the employer’s admission that the claimant received salary during the leave period.
Since the claimant had already drawn salary, awarding compensation of ₹3,66,586 for the same period amounted to compensation without actual loss.
On private practice, the Court found that there was no pleading in the original claim application that the claimant was earning additional income through private practice. The claim was introduced only later in examination-in-chief.
The claimant had also admitted that he had not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was a private practitioner.
The Court observed that if the claimant was really carrying on private practice and earning ₹10,000 per month, he should have produced at least some evidence. No document was produced to show any clinic, establishment, patient records, receipts, accounts or permissions.
The Court held that welfare legislation cannot be used for profiteering, particularly when the claimant has not discharged the basic burden of proof.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,60,000 towards loss of income from private practice.
The Court also set aside the award of ₹3,66,586 towards loss of income due to absence from duty.
The Court directed that if these amounts had been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, they should be refunded to the Insurance Company along with accrued interest.
The claimant was permitted to withdraw the remaining compensation with interest after deduction of the above two amounts.
Case Details
Case: Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohidas Ambadas Chavan & Anr.
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: First Appeal No. 157 of 2015
Judge: Justice Jitendra Jain
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation towards alleged private practice income and salary loss during paid leave set aside.
