JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the condition in the award of compensation that the same shall be disbursed to the claimants only after they furnish security from the owner of the vehicle. 3. The facts, in brief, of the case, as per the writ petition, are that in respect of an accident which took place on 6.2.2004, a claim petition was filed by the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which came to be decided on 15.2.2008. While passing the award, the Tribunal has ordered that the amount of compensation should be paid to the claimants only after taking security from the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. Similar issue has been considered by various co-ordinate benches of this court in Smt. Rama & Balwant Singh, SBCWP No. 71 of 2006, Banwari Lal v. Gopi Ram , SBCMA No. 481/ of 2005, Sheoji Ram Mali v. The Judge, ADJ (FT) No. 7, Jaipur city and others , Kumari Nargis v. Karan Singh and Ors., SBCMA No. 356 of 2005 and Manju (Smt.) and ors. v. Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge and Ors. . and by this court in Smt. Uganti Devi at aforesaid condition is unreasonable and unjustified and, therefore, that was waived. 5. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, I find myself in agreement with the view taken therein. The condition of making the 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. 6. The impugned condition is, therefore, ordered to be deleted 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 Tribunal in the Award. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.Writ petition allowed. *******