Milap Chandra Jain, J. - (1.) These appeals have been filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the similar orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Sirohi dated June 4, 1993 by which Rs. 25,000/- have been awarded under Section 140 of the Act to the claimants and they have been required to invest 50% of the amounts in any fixed deposit scheme.
(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the condition which has been imposed by the learned Tribunal, namely, that 50% of the amount would be invested in some fixed deposit scheme so that the Insurance Company may be also to recover the amounts in case the claim petitions are dismissed is invalid and illegal. He also contended that by the imposition of the said condition, the very purpose of the award under Section 140 of the Act. stood frustrated.
(3.) There is great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no provision in the Act under which a condition can be imposed for the withdrawal of the amounts deposited under Section 140 of the Act. The liability to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Act is one the principle of no fault. It is clear from the provisions of Section 141 of the Act that the claimants are not required to return the difference amount if finally he is awarded lesser amount under Section 173 of the Act. The provisions of Chapter X have been enacted to provide immediate relief to the victim/heirs of the deceased. The provisions of this Chapter have effect notwithstanding any condition in any other provision of the Act or any other law for the time being in force vide Section 144 of the Act.;