NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SRIKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad ('the Tribunal', for short) in E.P. 4 of 2010 in M.V.O.P. No. 135 of 1994. The issues involved in the revision are as follows: (1) Adjustment and appropriation of payments towards costs, interests and principal; and (2) The correctness or otherwise of the income tax deducted [or to be deducted] at source, the position of law and the correct procedure that ought to be followed by the Insurance Company at the time of the deduction of tax at source from the amount of compensation/interest awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The facts necessary for consideration for the disposal of the present revision petition and the relevant exposition of law, in brief, are as follows: "The claim petition filed by the claimants/Decree Holders was allowed by the Tribunal and compensation was awarded to the claimants. They had filed the execution petition for realisation of the awarded amount of Rs. 3,17,000/- and interest and costs by attachment and sale of execution petition schedule movable properties of the Judgment debtor. The New India Assurance Company/Judgment Debtor/Revision Petitioner herein had deposited certain amount towards part satisfaction of the awarded compensation amount with interest and costs to the credit of the Original Petition before the Tribunal. The said amounts were withdrawn by the claimants/decree holders. The Claimants/decree holders filed their calculation memo. The Judgment debtor had also filed a memo and contended that the entire amount was deposited towards full satisfaction of the award long time back. However, the Insurance Company had deducted certain sum towards Income Tax Deductible at Source ('TDS' for short). However, the Decree Holders/claimants had disputed inter alia such tax deduction at source as contrary to Law and incorrect and claimed that the said deducted amount as still due from the judgment debtor. The Tribunal had accepted the adjustment of the amounts deposited as shown by the decree holders as correct and proper as on that particular date and had held that the claimants/decree holders are further entitled to the execution petition amount and granted time to the Judgment Debtor for the deposit of the said amount and the amount that became due thereafter. Aggrieved of the orders of the Tribunal, the Assurance Company had preferred the present Revision Petition.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Insurance Company and the claimants/decree holders.