Government doctor cannot claim compensation for loss of private practice or salary without evidence of actual loss.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged an order dated July 4, 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, which awarded ₹11,71,394/- to the Respondent No. 1 (a government doctor) for injuries sustained in an accident.

The award included ₹3,66,586/- for loss of income during an 11-month absence from duty and ₹6,60,000/- for loss of income from private practice.

The Insurance Company appealed on the grounds that the claimant continued to draw a salary during his leave and provided no evidence of a private practice.

1. Whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of income during absence from duty if they continued to receive a salary from their employer during that period.

2. Whether compensation for loss of earning from private practice can be awarded to a government doctor in the absence of documentary evidence or proof of government permission.

The court prioritized the principle that compensation under welfare legislation, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, must be based on actual loss and cannot result in "profiteering".

To claim loss of income, the burden of proof (onus) lies on the claimant to produce material evidence of such loss.

The court rejected the presumption that a government doctor inherently maintains a private practice, departing from the perspective in Mary Immanuvel & Anr. vs. Periyasamy & Ors.

The court found the Tribunal’s findings perverse regarding the salary claim, noting that the employer's witness (Ms. Usha Kanchan) expressly admitted during cross-examination that the claimant received his salary during the leave period.

Regarding the private practice claim, the court observed that the claimant failed to mention this income in his initial application and produced zero documentary evidence—such as clinic records or government permissions—to substantiate the claim.

The court reasoned that a professional like a doctor must demonstrate an established practice and compliance with government rules before such a loss can be quantified.

The court held that compensation cannot be granted for "loss of income" when evidence shows the salary was paid, nor for private practice without discharging the basic onus of proof.

The Insurance Company was directed to be refunded the excess deposited amounts with interest, while the claimant was permitted to withdraw the remaining balance of the original award.