the question of compensation is required to be considered because, the truck-container in question was not insured with any Insurance Company. So the petitioner is liable to pay compensation. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayprakash (supra), if the vehicle is not insured, then the owner of the vehicle is to be directed to offer security or to deposit an adequate amount to satisfy the award. In the present case, the claim has not yet filed but there is possibility of filing of the claim on behalf of the deceased and injured persons. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the owner of the vehicle to offer security or deposit any sum. Accordingly, the trial Court has directed the owner-petitioner of the truck-container to execute cash security of Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the said condition is stringent one. It is true that the condition is stringent but at the same time, the interest of the heirs of the deceased is also required to be seen. If the truck-container is returned to its owner, he may not comply with the decree/award that would be passed against him. So it is required to be imposed conditions to secure the interest of the deceased and the injured. On perusal of the orders of the trial Court, as well as the Revisional Court, it appears that both the Courts have taken into account the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Jayprakash (supra). Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. Hence I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence the
