ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Assailing the impugned order dated 9.5.2007 by which the application of claimant-applicant has been disposed of with a direction that a sum of Rs. 96,358/- be paid in cash to the claimant and the remaining amount of the award Rs. 1 lac be kept in fixed deposit receipt for 7 years, the claimant has knocked the door of this Court by filing this revision application. 3. Contention of Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the applicant is that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has acted illegally with material irregularity and exercise of its jurisdiction and also exercised the jurisdiction not vested in by Law, while passing such a conditional order. Because, there is no such stipulation in the award of the Tribunal which was passed on 20.11.2001 in Claim Case No. 42/2000 (Somchandra v. Ramdas and others). To bolster his submission learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on a decision of this Court in Bhura v. Manohar Singh and others [ 2008 ACJ 653 ] and vehemently contended that the law is well settled that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and if that is the position, since learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order deviating itself from the well settled principles of law, according to learned counsel, it can be said that the learned Tribunal while exercising execution jurisdiction acted illegally with material irregularity and also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. 4. Considered the argument. 5. On bare perusal of the record, it is gathered that no such condition was embodied in [he award passed by the Tribunal on 20.11.2001. Further, on going through the order passed by this Court in M.A. No. 488/02 (Somchandra v. Ramdas & two others) decided on 6.4.2005 [ 2005 (II) MPWN 77 ] this Court finds that such a condition is also not embodied in the said order, though, the learned Single Bench of this Court exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. Further, on going through the order passed by this Court in M.A. No. 488/02 (Somchandra v. Ramdas & two others) decided on 6.4.2005 [ 2005 (II) MPWN 77 ] this Court finds that such a condition is also not embodied in the said order, though, the learned Single Bench of this Court exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. This order of learned Single Judge was assailed by the present applicant by filing review application which was heard by Division Bench of this Court in MCC No. 675/05 (Somchandra v. Ramdas & two others) and on 31.10.2006 review application was disposed of with a direction that the Insurance Company is also liable along with the driver and owner of the vehicle, but the option was left for the Insurance Company to make appropriate application to the Tribunal to recover the amount from the Insured by proving that Insured committed breach of the condition of the policy. The net result of the above decision in the Miscellaneous Civil Case was that Insurance Company was also held liable to pay the amount of compensation along with the driver and the owner. In the review application also no such direction was passed that Rs. 1 lac shall be deposited in the fixed deposit receipt. 6. After having passed the award in the claim application, if an application is submitted by the claimant making prayer to withdraw the amount of compensation which has been awarded to him, this application would be dealt in the execution side only. It is well settled in law that the executing Court cannot go beyond a decree and since there is no such condition is embodied in the award dated 20.11.2001, to me, learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by passing such a conditional order and hence it had acted illegally with material irregularity in exercise 0 its jurisdiction. In this context I may profitably place reliance on a decision in Bhura v. Manohar Singh and others (supra). 7. Resultantly, this revision application succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by learned MACT Dewas so far as it relates to deposit Rs. 1 lac in FDR is hereby set aside. The learned MACT is hereby directed to disburse the amount of compensation to the applicant.