1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11410/2008 Mohan Lal Yogi Versus Narayan and others Date of order ::: October 20,2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Pankaj Gupta, for the petitioner BY THE COURT By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash or waive or modify the judgment dated 18.3.2008 passed by the M.A.C.T. Dausa so far as it relates to the condition regarding submission of security by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and for direction to the M.A.C.T. 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 22.9.2005, a Claim Petition No.570/2007 was filed by the petitioner Mohan Lal Yogi and his wife Smt.Meera Devi which came to be decided on 18.3.2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) Dausa. In the aforesaid impugned Award, the 2 condition of furnishing the security by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle has been imposed. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that imposing the aforesaid condition of furnishing security from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle is illegal. Similar issue has been considered by various coordinate 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 3 security being furnished by the driver and owner 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 Award dated 18.3.2008 so far as it directs payment of the compensation to the claimants only on furnishing security by the driver and the owner of the vehicle is set aside and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be forthwith released to the claimants subject to the scheme of investment etc. evolved by the M.A.C.T. in the Award. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. GoPal All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Gopal Lal Sharma Private Secretary