ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 27.7.06 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), Pali in Claim Case No.13/03, directing that before release of the amount of compensation deposited by the respondent-New India Insurance Company to the claimants, the owner of the vehicle should furnish security for the entire amount of compensation. 2. The facts relevant are that the claim petition preferred by the claimants claiming compensation on account of death of their husband/father-Yusuf s/o Aduji in motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.12.01, was allowed by the Tribunal and accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants. The owner of the vehicle and the driver were held liable for payment of compensation and the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability. However, applying the doctrine of ‘Pay and Recover’, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation and recover the amount from the person liable i.e. the driver and the owner in accordance with law. 3. In compliance of the award passed as aforesaid, the Insurance Company deposited the amount of compensation, however, the amount of compensation was not disbursed to the claimants immediately and vide order dated 27.7.06, the Tribunal directed that before releasing the amount of compensation to the claimants, the security for entire amount of compensation may be obtained from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation and directed that after making payment to the claimants, the insurer may recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the vehicle in accordance with law but while passing the award as aforesaid, no directions were issued that the amount of compensation to be deposited by the insurer shall not be disbursed to the claimants till the owner of the vehicle produces security for the entire amount of compensation and thus, the order impugned passed is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that on account of owner not furnishing the security, the payment of compensation to the claimants cannot be deferred for an indefinite period and thus, the amount of compensation deserves to be disbursed to the claimants forthwith. 5. Learned counsel submitted that on account of owner not furnishing the security, the payment of compensation to the claimants cannot be deferred for an indefinite period and thus, the amount of compensation deserves to be disbursed to the claimants forthwith. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma & Ors.” 2004(3) ACJ 2094, the directions issued by the Tribunal as aforesaid cannot be faulted with. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, in the instant case, while passing the award applying the doctrine of “Pay and Recover”, the respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants (the petitioners herein) and thereafter, recover the amount so paid from the owner and the driver, but there was no condition imposed that before disbursement of the amount of compensation to the claimants, the owner of the vehicle should furnish security for the entire amount. In this view of the matter, while passing the order dated 27.7.06, the Tribunal could not have modified the award passed so as to impose the condition of owner furnishing the security before the disbursement of the amount of compensation to the claimants. It is true that in Challa Bharathamma’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. But then, in subsequent decision in the matter of “Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul”, 2013(2) SCC 41 , the while following the decision in Challa Bharathamma’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the claimant may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company along with accrued interest and the Insurance Company thereafter, may recover the amount so paid from the owner. Suffice it to say that while directing disbursement of the amount to the claimants, no such condition of owner furnishing the security for the entire amount before the release of the amount was imposed. Suffice it to say that while directing disbursement of the amount to the claimants, no such condition of owner furnishing the security for the entire amount before the release of the amount was imposed. In the considered opinion of this court, on account of the failure of the owner to furnish the security, the payment of compensation to the claimants for which they are entitled in terms of award, could not have been deferred by the Tribunal for an indefinite period by passing the fresh order. 8. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.7.06 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, to the extent of imposing the condition that before disbursement of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the claimants, the security for the entire amount may be obtained from the owner of the vehicle, is set aside. The amount of compensation already deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal along with accrued interest may be disbursed to the petitioners-claimants in terms of the award, forthwith. No order as to costs. A copy of this order may be sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali forthwith.