ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated 6.1.2005 passed in Claim Case No.17/2002 by the Court of First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena on the ground that accident had taken place in the intervening night of 28.10.2001 and 29.10.2001 at about 1:30 am at village Sikri and the deceased died on 18.9.2002 at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior when he was under treatment. It is submitted that there is a vast gap of about 11 months between the date of accident and the date of death, and therefore, claims tribunal erred in holding that proximate cause of death of deceased was accident which was admittedly taken place in the intervening night of 28.10.2001 and 29.10.2001. 2. It is submitted deceased was admittedly diagnosed with Glioma which is a type of tumor that starts in the glial cells of the brain or the spine and is called Glioma because it arises from glial cells. It is pointed out that though deceased was taking treatment but that was from a cosmetic surgeon for plastic surgery and not for the tumor. 3. Attention has been drawn to Exhibit P-34 which is a C.T. Scan report of the deceased Jitendra dated 17.9.2002 in which it has been mentioned that mass lesion left parieto-occipital region could be Glioma. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anil & Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2018(1) MPWN 59 (SC) = MACD 2018(1) (SC) 38, wherein the ratio is that when there is no medical evidence to prove that the death occurred due to injuries received in the accident, the finding of the High Court declaring assessment of compensation to be perverse, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for appellant has produced literature on Glioma extracted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in which under the head of Signs and Symptoms, it is mentioned as under : “Symptoms of gliomas depend on which part of the central nervous system is affected. A brain glioma can cause headaches, vomiting, seizures, and cranial nerve disorders as a result of increased intracranial pressure. A glioma of the optic nerve can cause visual loss. Spinal cord gliomas can cause pain, weakness, or numbness in the extremities. A brain glioma can cause headaches, vomiting, seizures, and cranial nerve disorders as a result of increased intracranial pressure. A glioma of the optic nerve can cause visual loss. Spinal cord gliomas can cause pain, weakness, or numbness in the extremities. Gliomas do not usually metastasize by the bloodstream, but they can spread via the cerebrospinal fluid and cause “drop metastases” to the spinal cord.” 6. It is admitted that Glioma is a tumor and only high grade Gliomas shows poor prognosis; for low grade tumor, prognosis is somewhat more optimistic, and therefore, since no postmortem was carried out, exact cause of death could be because of such Glioma, and therefore, the Claims Tribunal should not have awarded compensation on account of death of Jitendra. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that this argument is too far fetched and should not be accepted in the first place but even if this argument is accepted, it is an admitted position that Jitendra had sustained injuries in the accident in the intervening night of 28.10.2001 and 29.10.2001. It has come on record that Jitendra had sustained injuries in head for which he was operated upon by Dr. B.L. Rajput and Dr. P.K. Tiwari. 8. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that after detection of Glioma, without postmortem it cannot be said that deceased succumbed due to tumor or as a result of trauma caused by the accident. Therefore, this Court would like to set-aside the award & treat this to be an injury case and determine the claim. 9. It is an admitted position that Jitendra was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi from 29.10.2001 to 10.11.2001, where operations on his head and eye were performed vide Exhibit P-8 & P-9 respectively. After discharge, he was brought to Banmore, and then he had consulted Dr. Bhatnagar who performed plastic surgery as face of Jitendra was defaced due to accident. He was operated twice between 23.11.2001 and 18.05.2002. Thereafter he was treated by Dr. Jain. 10. Learned Tribunal has admitted that deceased was employed as a Conductor and was drawing salary of Rs. 2000/- per month and dose allowance of Rs.30/- per day. His monthly income will be to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month. He was operated twice between 23.11.2001 and 18.05.2002. Thereafter he was treated by Dr. Jain. 10. Learned Tribunal has admitted that deceased was employed as a Conductor and was drawing salary of Rs. 2000/- per month and dose allowance of Rs.30/- per day. His monthly income will be to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month. He could not attend to his duties for a period of 11 months: therefore, under the head of loss of salary a sum of Rs. 33,000/- is admissible to the claimants. Besides, Jitendra had undergone face operations and was requiring care of attendant, nutritious diet, besides amounts were spent on transport. 11. At Safdarjung hospital, Jitendra was diagnosed as a case of multiple CLW involving the whole scalp: fracture of right clavicle; left eye swelling; avulsion injury (i.e. body structure is torn off either due to trauma or surgery). 12. Thus under the head of fracture a sum of Rs. 25000/- is payable, besides a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering undergone during each of the operation procedures, which will come out Rs. 80,000/- as admitted he had undergone four operations. 13. Claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,000/- under the head of attendant for a period of 11 months @ Rs.2000/- per month. Another sum of Rs. 16,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month under the head of nutritious diet. Rs. 10,000/- under the head of transportation, besides Rs. 11,630/- for purchase of medicines etc. Besides this, claimants were allowed a sum of Rs. 800/- as fee for the counsel. 14. Thus on above analysis, since Insurance Company has been able to create a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, instead of treating this to be a death case, it is treated as a case of accident & on the basis of above analysis insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,98,930/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty) by way of compensation along with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. ...............