C.R. No.8186 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8186 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 16.12.2010. Nirmala Kumari and others .……Petitioners Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Patyal, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.31937-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Surinder Paswan caused in a Motor Vehicular Accident. Claimants are widow and both parents of the deceased. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali vide award dated 06.08.2010 Annexure P-1 allowed the said claim petition, awarding Rs.4,33,000/- as compensation to the claimants/petitioners. The petitioners filed execution petition. The compensation amount stood deposited. Learned Claims Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.10.2010 Annexure P-2 ordered release of the compensation amount to the petitioners in terms of award Annexure P-1, but on furnishing of surety bond in double of the awarded amount by the claimants to C.R. No.8186 of 2010 (O & M) -2- compensate the better claimants if found in future. Aggrieved by this condition of furnishing surety bond, petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to challenge order Annexure P-2 passed by the Claims Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no condition of furnishing surety bond was imposed in award Annexure P-1 and, therefore, the executing Court while passing order Annexure P-2 could not impose any such condition of furnishing surety bond. There is considerable force in the contention. Award Annexure P-1 was passed by the Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the petitioners. There is no condition in the said award that compensation shall be released to the petitioners on furnishing of any surety bond. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal while executing the said award could not have imposed any such condition. Even otherwise, the said condition imposed by the Tribunal is patently illegal and perverse and without any justification. The claimants belong to Jharkhand and it is almost impossible for them to furnish some solvent surety in Mohali (Punjab) for double the compensation amount. Moreover, there is nothing on record to even remotely infer that there is any other better claimant to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. Widow and both parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition. If the deceased had any issue, he would also have been impleaded as claimant when widow of the deceased is one of the claimants. Be that as it may, there is no C.R. No.8186 of 2010 (O & M) -3- justification for imposing the condition of furnishing surety bond by the petitioners for release of the compensation amount to them. Impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error as the Claims Tribunal as executing Court had no jurisdiction to impose any such condition. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-2 of the Claims Tribunal is modified by deleting the condition of furnishing of surety bond by the petitioners. In other words, compensation amount shall be released to the claimants/petitioners without furnishing of any surety bond. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.12.2010. A. Kaundal