The Petitioner–New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this petition challenging the order dated 21 November 2014 passed by the learned member of the Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby an application of Respondent No.1 for issuance of warrant of attachment against the Petitioner in execution of an award, for not depositing part of the award amount, on the ground that the same has been deducted as “tax deducted at source” (TDS), stands allowed.

2. Respondent No.1 is the original claimant who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17 October 2005. The Respondent No.1 had filed Claim Application No.1178 of 2006, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner-Insurer. The learned member of the Tribunal by his judgment and order dated 30 July 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- inclusive of no fault liability amount together with the simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the said amount.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that it has satisfied the Award of the Tribunal by depositing a cheque of an amount of Rs.3,23,502/- towards the principal amount, after adjusting no fault liability amount already paid and Rs.1,26,918/- towards the interest part, after deducting of tax at source (TDS) as per the provisions of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The TDS amount is already deposited with the Income Tax Authority and the TDS certificate in the form No.16A is produced before the Tribunal.

4. The Respondent No.1 would contend before the Tribunal that the Petitioner could not have deducted tax at source but ought to have deposited the full award amount. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by this action of the Petitioner thus moved Execution Application No.38 of 2013 praying for issuance of warrant of attachment against the Petitioner. According to Respondent No.1, the Petitioner has defaulted in depositing the full amount as per the Award by wrongly deducting TDS of Rs.40,034/- which was the balance amount liable to be paid by the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner resisted the execution application interalia contending that there is no liability to deposit the said amount, inasmuch as the Petitioner was under a legal obligation to deduct the TDS as per the provisions of the Income Tax, 1961 and the same is deposited with the income tax authorities. It is stated that the TDS amount on interest paid as was deposited with the Income Tax department, the Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to Respondent No.1. The Petitioner produced a TDS certificate and contended that in view of the TDS certificate, Respondent No.1 can approach the Income Tax Authorities if so permissible and make a claim for the said amount.

6. The learned member of the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in “Gauri Deepak Patel & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.”, 2011 ACJ 1782 observed that the Petitioner has not followed the guidelines as contained in the decision for depositing the TDS amount. It is observed that the Petitioner having knowledge of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the law laid down by the Division Bench ought not to have deducted a lumpsum TDS and deposited the same with the Income Tax department. It was observed that the Petitioner by deducting the TDS amount has actually deprived Respondent No.1 from receiving the award amount, and as the Petitioner was not ready to deposit the amount, warrant of attachment was directed to be issued by passing the following order:

“ORDER

Application is allowed.

Issue attachment warrant under Order 21 rule 43 of CPC on process fee for attachment of three computers in the office of the insurance company. If the insurance company deposited the amount before issuance of attachment warrant then the warrant be stayed.”

7. On the above conspectus, learned Counsel for the Petitioner