1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10357/2008 Mewa and another Versus Mohd.Rafique and others Date of order ::: October 7,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Gaurav Gupta, for the petitioners BY THE COURT By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash or waive or modify the judgment/orders dated 5.12.2005 (Anx.2) and 4.7.2008 (Anx.4) passed by the M.A.C.T. Kotputli so far as they relate to the condition regarding submission of security by the 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 12.6.2001, a Claim Petition No.490/2001 was filed by the petitioners which came to be decided on 22.8.2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli. Vide order dated 5.12.2005 the M.A.C.T. has imposed the 2 condition that the amount of compensation will be disbursed after submission of security by the owner of the vehicle. The application filed by the petitioners for disbursement of the compensation amount has been rejected by the M.A.C.T. vide order dated 4.7.2008 for want of receipt of record from the Rajasthan High Court. Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that imposing the aforesaid condition of furnishing security by 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. 3 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 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 order dated 5.12.2005 so far as it directs payment of the compensation to the claimants only on furnishing security by the owner of the vehicle as also the order dated 4.7.2008 are 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 disposed of. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. Gopal