1 CWP No.8564/2008 Security IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8564/2008 Ramswroop Versus Mathuresh Prasad and others DATE OF ORDER --- November 25,2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Ritesh Jain, for the petitioner BY THE COURT By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the condition imposed by the M.A.C.T. (Addl.Distt.Judge (Fast Track),Dausa, in Claim Case No.184/2007 regarding submission of security by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and then to disburse the amount of compensation to the petitioner. The facts, in brief, of the case, as per the writ petition are that in respect of an accident which took place on 7.1.2006, Claim Petition No.184/2007 was filed by the petitioner which came to be decided on 8.8.2007 according to which the compensation was ordered to be paid to the petitioner only 2 CWP No.8564/2008 Security on submission of security by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that imposing the aforesaid condition of furnishing security by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is illegal. Similar issue has been considered by various co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Smt.Rama and Balwant Singh, SBCWP No.71/2006, (Banwari Lal Vs. Gopi Ram), SBCMA No.481/2000 (Sheoji Ram Mali V. The Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No.2, Jaipur City and others, Kumari Nargis V. Karan Singh and others, SBCMA No.356/05 decided on 22.8.2006, and Balveer Singh V. Yogendra Singh and others SBCWP No.3268/2006 decided on 18.7.2008 wherein it has been held that imposition of such a condition is unjustified and therefore, the same was waived. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, I find myself in agreement with the view taken therein. The condition of making payment of compensation to the claimants to depend upon the factum of security being furnished by the owner and 3 CWP No.8564/2008 Security driver of the vehicle involved in the accident can neither be said to be justified nor reasonable. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 8.8.2007 so far as it directs payment of the compensation to the claimant only on furnishing security by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle is set aside and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be forthwith released to the claimant subject to the scheme of investment etc. evolved by the M.A.C.T. in the Award. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल