JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 6/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 19/5/2008 and further directed that if the Insurance Company has made payment of compensation in case no. 413/2008 relating to the same accident, the said amount could be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle along with interest. It is further ordered that in case the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days, the award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of award. 2. An application for compensation was filed by the respondent Prem Lal, who was injured while travelling in Bus no. RJ-27-PA-0896 on 6/4/2008 when the bus turned turtle. During the pendency of the petition, Prem Lal expired, the legal representatives i.e. his mother and sister were taken on record and they amended the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Prem Lal on account of injuries suffered by him resulting from the accident which occurred on 6/4/2008. 3. A reply was filed by the appellant Insurance Company resisting the averments made in the claim petition and stating that the death did not result on account of alleged injuries. 4. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited, on behalf of the Insurance Company one witness was examined and 16 documents were exhibited. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the judgment as noticed hereinbefore. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned award inasmuch as the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased Prem Lal died on account of injuries suffered from the said accident and, therefore, the claim petition should have been rejected. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned award inasmuch as the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased Prem Lal died on account of injuries suffered from the said accident and, therefore, the claim petition should have been rejected. It was further submitted that several claims were filed pertaining to the accident in question and on account of terms of the Policy and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Anjana Shyam : 2007 (4) ACC 355, the Insurance Company was held liable for payment of compensation in 15 claim cases in descending order i.e. from highest amount to the lowest amount and the Insurance Company made the payment for 15 such claims and the present claim which was 16th in number, the Insurance Company could not be held liable and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the accident occurred on 6/4/2008 and Prem Lal died on 8/9/2008 after he was discharged from the hospital on 26/4/2008, wherein, he had suffered extensive injuries. Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years, it cannot be said that but for the accident and the injuries suffered by deceased that he died, as there cannot be any other reason in this regard and, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal do not call for any interference. 7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Insurance Company to make payment of amount of compensation and only because the present claim was decided separately from the other claims, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company could not be held liable and, therefore, the appeal having no substance, deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare perusal of the material indicates that the appellant Insurance Company in its written statement to the amended claim petition had taken a plea that the injured Prem Lal did not die on account of the accident, however, in the cross examination of the witnesses, not a single question regarding cause of death was put to them, whereas, in the examination-in-chief it was specifically indicated that the injured Prem Lal died on account of the said accident. 10. Looking to the proximity of the date of death from the date of accident and the nature of extensive injuries which were suffered by Prem Lal, coupled with the fact that he was aged 18 years only, the injuries suffered by him appears to be the only reason for his untimely death and it cannot said that he died not because of the injuries but for any other reason. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 11. So far as holding the Insurance Company liable for making payment of compensation is concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra), the Insurance Company was liable to make payment in 15 cases in descending order i.e. from the highest claim to the lowest claim and since the lowest claim paid was Rs. 48,000/- only, the Insurance Company was rightly held liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. Merely because the present case, on account of the fact of amendment etc. was decided separately, the claimants cannot be deprived of the amount of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has taken care by ordering for refund of Rs. 48,000/- to the Insurance Company along with interest by the owner of the vehicle in case the Insurance Company had made payment of compensation in claim case no. 413/2008. The said direction takes care of any objection, which the appellant Insurance Company may have had qua the said direction. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the award impugned, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.