Bombay HC Strikes Down Rs 10.26 Lakh in Motor Accident Award for Unproven Private Practice and Paid Leave

The Bombay High Court set aside two heads of compensation totalling over Rs 10 lakh awarded to a government doctor, finding no evidence of private practice or actual income loss during paid leave taken after a road accident.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a judgment delivered on 7 July 2026, allowed a first appeal filed by Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and struck down two specific heads of a motor accident compensation award. Justice Jitendra Jain, sitting singly, set aside Rs 6,60,000 awarded for alleged loss of income from private practice and Rs 3,66,586 awarded for loss of salary during an 11-month leave period. The court found both awards unsupported by the evidence on record and partly contrary to express admissions made by the claimant's own employer during cross-examination before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane.

The claimant, Dr Rohidas Ambadas Chavan, a government doctor residing in Thane, had been awarded a total of Rs 11,71,394 by the Tribunal in its order dated 4 July 2012. The insurance company challenged two components of that award, which together exceeded Rs 10 lakh.

What the Tribunal Awarded and Why the Insurer Appealed

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane awarded Dr Chavan Rs 11,71,394 as compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The detailed breakup of the award appeared at page 14 of the Tribunal's order. Of the total sum, two heads were specifically contested before the High Court.

The first contested head was Rs 3,66,586, described as compensation for loss of salary during the approximately 11 months Dr Chavan remained absent from his government duties following the accident. The Tribunal had examined this in paragraph 24 of its order, relying on the evidence of a witness, Ms Usha Kanchan, to conclude that Dr Chavan was entitled to salary for the 11 months he did not attend work.

The second contested head was Rs 6,60,000, representing alleged loss of income from private practice. Dr Chavan claimed he was earning Rs 10,000 per month from a private medical practice in addition to his government employment.

The Employer's Admission That Undid the Absence-from-Duty Award

Justice Jain found the Tribunal's reasoning on the absence-from-duty head to be perverse. During cross-examination before the Tribunal, Ms Usha Kanchan — the employer's witness — had admitted in paragraph 2 of her cross-examination that Dr Chavan had in fact drawn his salary during the leave period.

The Tribunal had not factored this admission into its analysis. The court held that once the employer's own witness confirmed the claimant received his salary while on leave, awarding compensation for that same period as a loss-of-income head was directly contrary to the facts on record. The finding was, in the court's assessment, based on a material misreading of evidence.

The compensation of Rs 3,66,586 for absence from duty was accordingly quashed.

Private Practice Claim: No Documentation, No Establishment, No Award

The private practice claim presented a separate problem. When Dr Chavan filed his claim petition before the Tribunal, there was no mention of any income from private practice. The claim surfaced for the first time in his examination-in-chief before the Tribunal.

In cross-examination, Dr Chavan expressly admitted that he had not produced any documentary evidence to demonstrate that he was a private practitioner. Justice Jain observed that a private practice necessarily involves some establishment to which patients come for treatment, yet nothing of that nature was placed on record. The court also noted that it was not even Dr Chavan's case that he conducted private practice from his residence.

The regulatory dimension compounded the evidentiary gap. The court pointed out that government doctors are generally subject to rules and regulations regarding private practice, and no material was placed before it to show either that no such permission was required or that the necessary permission had in fact been obtained. The court refused to allow a welfare legislation to be used, in its words, for profiteering, particularly by a person employed as a government doctor.

The Rs 6,60,000 awarded under this head was also quashed.

Rejection of the Madras High Court Precedent Cited by the Claimant

Counsel for Dr Chavan relied on a Madras High Court decision in Mary Immanuel & Anr. v. Periyasamy & Ors. (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37748), arguing that the court should presume a government doctor was engaged in private practice and therefore sustain the Tribunal's award on that ground.

Justice Jain respectfully declined to follow that view. The court held that the onus lies on the person claiming income from private practice to affirmatively demonstrate that such practice existed and that income was being earned from it. The presumption-based approach adopted by the Madras High Court was not accepted.

The court reiterated that in the case of a government doctor, compliance requirements for private practice cannot be overlooked. Allowing compensation without even a basic discharge of the evidentiary burden would stretch the beneficial character of motor accident legislation beyond its proper limits.

Outcome

Justice Jain allowed the first appeal to the extent of the two contested heads. The Tribunal's award of Rs 6,60,000 for loss of income from private practice and Rs 3,66,586 for loss of income due to absence from duty were quashed and set aside.

The court directed that if these two amounts had already been deposited by Bajaj Alliance Insurance with the Tribunal, they should be refunded to the insurer along with accrued interest. The balance compensation remaining after reducing the two quashed amounts, together with applicable interest, is to be withdrawn by Dr Chavan.

The statutory deposit of Rs 25,000 is to be transferred to the Tribunal, and both parties are at liberty to apply for its refund.