JUDGMENT 1. - Counsel for claimants seek dispensation of service of notice upon respondents No.1 & 2 who are driver & owner of offending vehicle, which is not opposed. Ordered accordingly. 2. Instant appeal arising out of Award dated 27/06/06 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ADJ Kekri (Ajmer) is MAC No. 20/05, is heard at joint request of the parties and disposed of by this order only on a limited relief seeking for quashing condition of furnishing security by the owner before release of compensation to the claimants. 3. Award impugned pertains to accident which took place on 27.06.06 near Calegery Hospital Malviya Nagar Jaipur due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor No. RJ- 01-R-1649 by its driver which caused death of Hemraj. 4. Only contention advanced is that after computation of compensation, since the finding has been recorded about breach of policy of insurance and recovery rights have been extended to the insurer, the payment whereof has been made dependent upon only after the insured furnishes security. However, the amount determined under Award impugned has neither been questioned nor disputed by either of parties. 5. Counsel submits that after recovery rights have been extended to the insurer, incorporation of the condition of releasee of the compensation only upon furnishing security by insured (owner of the offending vehicle) is not legally sustainable because furnishing of security by owner of offending vehicle is beyond control of claimants-as a result whereof despite their entitlement under Award in their favour, they will be deprived of compensation and this Court in Kumari Nargis v. Karan Singh, CMA 356/2005 & others decided on 22/08/2006 has also considered similar issue and such condition has been set aside. 6. Counsel for the respondents submits that if this condition is lifted and amount is released to the claimants it would be difficult for the insurer to recover from the insured (owner) despite their best efforts. In my opinion, I have already considered in details in the judgment Kumari Nargis v. Karan Singh (supra) -and observed that when amount of compensation is not disputed among the parties and recovery rights are also made available to the insurer, and it is considered to be decree and can be executed by filing application before Executing Court as observed by Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Asha Rani, 2001 (3) TAC 565 : 2003 (2) SCC 223 as discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 , in my opinion, such a rider and condition put under impugned Award for release of determined compensation only on furnishing security by the insured is not legally sustainable. 7. In the light of above, this appeal stands allowed in part and the condition of furnishing security by insured (owner) of offending vehicle as put in Award impugned is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount to the claimants in terms of the Award impugned. However, it is made clear that the insurer will be free to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle in accordance with law as observed by the Tribunal.Appeal Allowed *******