1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.673/ 2007 Mukesh Versus ADJ No.4, Ajmer and another Date of order : : : October 16, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Preety Mehta, for the petiioner Mr.Sukh Ram Jatav, for the respondents BY THE COURT By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.12.2005 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer on the application filed by the Insurance Company under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby the condition of furnishing security by the owner of the offending vehicle has been imposed. The facts, in brief, of the case, as per the writ petition are that in respect of an accident which took place on 27.8.2002, a Claim Petition No.116/ 2005 (430/ 2002) was filed by the petitioner Mukesh which came to be decided on 17.9.2005 by the Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer. After the aforesaid Award dated 17.9.2005, the Insurance Company filed an application u/ s 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying that the compensation may be paid to the claimant only on furnishing security from the owner of the offending vehicle. The said application has been allowed 2 vide order dated 10.12.2005. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that imposing the aforesaid condition of furnishing security from the owner of the offending vehicle is illegal. Submission of counsel for the respondent Insurance Co. is that the condition of security is just, legal and proper and there is nothing illegal in ordering so. 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 claimant 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 10.12.2005 directing payment of the compensation to the claimant only on furnishing security by 3 the owner of the 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 Addl. Distt. Judge (F.T.) No.4, Ajmer in the Award. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. GoPal