JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is the claimant has approached this Court by means of the present petition as he is aggrieved by the condition in the award that the amount of compensation be released in his favour only after the owner of the vehicle furnishes security of the award amount. 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 v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and Others, reported in 2006 (5) W.L.C. (Raj) 791 and in the case of Banwari Lal v. Gopi Ram, reported in 2005 (2) D.N.J. (Raj.) 781 . 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 v. Mushtari Begum and Others, reported in 2004 (3) T.A.C. 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 off.Writ Petition Disposed off. *******