1 2026:CGHC:14761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1370 of 2019 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Centre, Near Old Bus Stand, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Bus Bearing No. C.G.-10-G.-0915), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Manish Kumar S/o Late Sushil Kumar Kashyap Aged About 13 Years No.1 Is Minor, Through Natural Guardian His Grandfather Madhav Prasad Kashyap, R/o Vikas Nagar, Mangla Chowk, Ward No. 1, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Madhav Prasad S/o Late Chheduram Kashyap Aged About 68 Years R/o Vikas Nagar, Mangla Chowk, Ward No. 1, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ganeshiya Bai W/o Madhav Prasad Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Vikas Nagar, Mangla Chowk, Ward No. 1, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sukhdev S/o Gyandas Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years R/o Malhapara, Ward No. 5, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Bus No. C.G. 10-G-0915)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Ramsun Begam W/o Abdul Gaffar, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Gorkhapali Jhilminda, District Bargarh (Orissa). (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bus No. C.G. -10-G-0915)., District : Bargarh *, Orissa ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 30.03.2026 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 15.04.2019, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,67,056/- have been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case accident took place on 02.09.2015 and deceased Sushil Kumar Kashyap died later on during the course of treatment on 05.10.2015 on account of gangrene and the claimants have failed to produce any document or evidence to show that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him during the accident in question. As such, it cannot be said that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and appellant- Insurance company deserves to be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. Learned counsel rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1 in support of their submissions. 3. None for the respondent though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered her 1 2019 Supreme (SC) 486 3 rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Alka Shukla (supra) has clearly held that in order to sustain claim under accident benefit cover, it must be established that assured has sustained a bodily injury which resulted solely and directly from accident 6. In that view of the matter, since in the present case accident took place on 02.09.2015 and, thereafter, deceased Sushil Kumar Kashyap during the course of treatment suffered gangrene and later on died on 05.10.2015, but the insurance company did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that the deceased died only on account of gangrene and not on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. Even, the officer, namely, Narendra Kumar, who has been examined on behalf of the insurance company did not utter any word that the deceased died on account of subsequent event and not on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. As such, the insurance company failed to discharge its burden to prove that the deceased died on account of subsequent event i.e. gangrene and not by the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question, though the said plea has specifically been taken in Para-03 of their written statement. Consequently, the findings of the Claims Tribunal is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if