The Bombay High Court has held that there is no presumption that a Government doctor has a private medical practice or earns additional income therefrom. The Court observed that the burden lies upon the claimant to establish, by cogent evidence, that he was actually engaged in private practice and earning income from it before claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on that basis.

Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.11,71,394/- to a Government doctor who had suffered injuries in a motor accident. The challenge was confined to the amounts awarded towards alleged loss of income from private practice and loss of salary during the period of absence from duty.

The Court noted that the Tribunal had overlooked the categorical admission of the employer's witness that the claimant had drawn his salary throughout the leave period. In view of this admission, the award of compensation towards loss of salary was contrary to the evidence on record and could not be sustained.

With regard to the alleged loss of income from private practice, the Court noted that the claim had not even been pleaded in the application before the Tribunal and was raised for the first time in the claimant's examination-in-chief. The claimant admitted in cross-examination that he had not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was carrying on private practice.

The Court observed that no material had been produced to establish the existence of a clinic, an establishment for treating patients, or any other evidence demonstrating that the claimant was actually engaged in private practice. It further noted that no material had been placed on record to show whether the applicable Government rules permitted the claimant, being a Government doctor, to undertake private practice.

The Court declined to follow the decision of the Madras High Court in Mary Immanuvel v. Periyasamy [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37748], which presumed that a Government doctor would ordinarily have private practice. It held that such a presumption was unwarranted and that the claimant must first discharge the burden of proving actual private practice and earnings. The Court observed that welfare legislation cannot be used for profiteering by awarding compensation on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim.

“… 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,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award insofar as it granted Rs.6,60,000/- towards loss of income from private practice and Rs.3,66,586/- towards loss of salary during the period of absence from duty, while maintaining the remaining compensation.

Case Title: Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohidas Ambadas Chavan [First Appeal No. 157 of 2015]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 317

Click Here To Read/Download Order