Judgment Hon'ble SINGH, J.—The petitioner who is the claimant has approached this court by means of the present petition as he is aggrieved by the following condition in the award :- ^^Dyse ;kfpdk izkFkhZ fo:) chek dEiuh vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA fdUrq vnk;xh loZizFke vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds }kjk gh dh tkosxhA rFkk vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 vius }kjk vnk dh x;h leLr jkf'k e; olwyh jde e; C;kt fcuk vyx ls dksbZ nkok fd;s] blh dk;Zokgh ds vUrxZr] - - - - - djk dj okgu Lokeh vizkFkhZ la[;k nks ls olwy dj ldsxhA fdUrq izkFkhZ dks vc vnk;xh ls iwoZ okgu Lokeh vizkFkhZ la[;k nks ls mä chek dEiuh ds i{k esa mfpr izfrHkwfr ysus ds i'pkr~ gh ;g vnk;xh dh tk ldsxhA pwafd vizkFkhZ la[;k nks tfj;s vf/koäk mifLFkr gS] vr% vizkFkhZ la[;k nks dk ;g vkns'k gS fd og vkxkeh is'kh fnukad 30-11-2007 dks mifLFkr vkdj mDr vuqlkj mfpr izfrHkwfr izLrqr djsA bldh vizkFkhZ dks vyx ls uksfVl izsf"kr djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA bl fu.kZ; dks gh vizkFkhZ la[;k nks ds fy, lwpuk ekuk tkosxkA vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 izkFkhZ ds uke dk pSd@MªkV vanj ,d ekg Hkqxrku gsrq bl vf/kdj.k esa izLrqr dj tek djkosaA** 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid condition contained in the award is contrary to the decisions of this court rendered in the case of Smt.Manju and Others vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and Others reported in 2006 (5) WLC (Raj) 791 and in the case of Banwari Lal vs. Gopi Ram reported in 2005(2) DNJ (Raj.) 781 = RLW 2005-06 (Suppl.) Raj. 122. 3. On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the condition which has been imposed directing the non-petitioner No.2 to submit a surety before the amount deposited by the insurance company on behalf of the insured can be released to the petitioner is contrary to law. 4. 122. 3. On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the condition which has been imposed directing the non-petitioner No.2 to submit a surety before the amount deposited by the insurance company on behalf of the insured can be released to the petitioner is contrary to law. 4. Having considered the matter, I am of the view that the condition which has been imposed by the Tribunal may be modified to the extent as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agarwal and Others vs. Mushtari Begum and Others reported in 2004(3) TAC 289(SC), the Tribunal shall take into account the contingency that in case the owner of the vehicle who is the insured does not furnish the requisite surety, the learned Tribunal shall attach the vehicle of the insured and upon such attachment the amount may be released to the petitioner claimant and for this purpose the Tribunal executing the award would be entitled to take the assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. 5. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.