JUDGMENT 1. - The claimants have approached this Court by way of present writ petition against the conditional award by MACT, Jaitaran, Dist. Pali dated 12.12.2007 while deciding claim case No.136/2006 - Jyota and ors. v. Mohd. Yusuf and ors. to the effect that amount of claim deposited by the Insurance Company may be released to the claimants only upon furnishing the Bank security by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in question. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments of the coordinate benches of this Court in which it has been held by different benches of this Court that such a condition cannot be imposed as condition precedent for disbursement of the claim amount to the claimants: (1) 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 542 - Tahali Behra and ors. v. MACT and ors. (2) 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 340 - Smt. Shanto Devi v. The MACT, Dholpur. (3) 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 313 - Nanga Ji v. Ajij Mohd. and ors. (4) 2009(2) DNJ (Raj.) 790 - Parmadevi @Premlata v. Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge. (5) 2009 WLC (Raj.) 524 - Ram Bharos v. Jagmal and ors. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not fairly dispute this proposition of law. 4. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and in view of aforesaid judgments of this Court, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed to this extent. In the case of Nanga Ji (supra), this Court has observed as under: "9. As far as the imposition of the condition is concerned, such an imposition nullifies the beneficial provisions of the Act. The beneficial provisions were enacted to ensure that the claimants who has either sustained an injury or has suffered the loss due to the death of a family member should be compensated monetarily so as to mitigate his loss. By imposing the condition that the compensation award shall not be disbursed until and unless the owner submits security, denies the claimant the benefits ensured by law. Thus, such an imposition by a condition defeats the very purpose for which the law was enacted. Moreover, the imposition of such a condition is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the Act. This Court is fortified in its view by the case of Kumari Nargis and ors. (supra), where similar observations have been made by this Court. Moreover, the imposition of such a condition is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the Act. This Court is fortified in its view by the case of Kumari Nargis and ors. (supra), where similar observations have been made by this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the condition imposed by the learned Tribunal." 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award dated 12.12.2007 that the amount of compensation may be disbursed to the claimants subject to driver and owner of the offending vehicle furnishing Bank Security is deleted and claim amount may be disbursed to the claimants upon furnishing an usual undertaking that in case the impugned award is set aside by the higher appellate Court, they would refund back the said amount of claim received y them with interest @9% per annum. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of this order be sent to all the MACT in State for needful compliance and to make a note of this.Petition Allowed. *******