Non-renewal alone does not bar alternative-medicine practice absent proof the practitioner was struck off.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after Sibaprasad Rana died from injuries sustained when a motorcycle struck him while he was walking on 9 November 2020.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹13,82,600 with interest at 5% per annum.

The claimants appealed, contending that the Tribunal had underestimated the deceased’s income and that the compensation and interest were inadequate.

The deceased held a registration certificate from the Alternative Medical Council, Calcutta.

The insurer disputed his claimed professional status, relying on a Division Bench decision and arguing that there was no proof that his certificate had been renewed.

1. Whether the deceased’s practice of alternative medicine could be considered in assessing his income, notwithstanding the insurer’s challenge to his professional status and the absence of proof of certificate renewal.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of income and the resulting compensation and interest required enhancement.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

In Sanjib Das v. State of W.B. & Ors., MANU/WB/0643/2013, the Division Bench held that persons without a qualification recognised under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot use the prefix “Doctor” or “Dr.”; the Court read that decision as not barring them from practising in the field of alternative medicine.

The Court also relied on the Alternative Medical Council certificate’s terms, which stated that registered practitioners were eligible to practise alternative medicine and that renewal was required annually, with non-renewal permitting the Council to strike a name from its register.

In reassessing compensation, the Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, used a multiplier of 17, and added ₹84,000 for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court held that Sanjib Das restricted use of the “Doctor” prefix but did not prevent practice in alternative medicine.

Although the deceased’s certificate was subject to annual renewal, the insurer produced no evidence that his name had been struck off the Council’s register; the Court therefore rejected the challenge to his continuing practice.

As the claimants had not produced bank or tax records or evidence of patient numbers and fees, the Court did not accept the asserted monthly income of ₹24,000.

It nevertheless considered the deceased’s age, profession and period of practice and assessed monthly income at ₹12,000.

Applying the stated additions, deduction and multiplier produced a calculated total of ₹23,68,800, but the Court considered ₹23 lakh just and reasonable.

The claimants were awarded ₹23 lakh with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was filed until the date of judgment.

The insurer was directed to deposit that amount and interest with the Registrar General within eight weeks of communication of the order; any amount already deposited or paid was to be accounted for, and the claimants could withdraw the compensation upon completing the necessary formalities.

The Court also directed payment of the deficit court fee within four weeks.