JUDGMENT :

Akil Kureshi, J.

1. A young boy, barely aged 8 years, cheerful and full of life, was trying to cross the road accompanied by his household help. His life was full of joy, happiness, his future full of possibilities. Before he crossed the road all that changed. Knocked down by a speeding vehicle, he lost his consciousness, remained in coma for six months. For the remainder of his life, he wished he had not regained consciousness. He has filed this petition seeking our opinion whether income tax department was justified in taking away 30% of the interest on the compensation which was determined nearly 36 years after the accident. Looking to the issues involved, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petition arises in the following background:

FACTS:

The petitioner is presently aged about 48 years. When he was about 8 years old, on 18.10.1978, he was trying to cross Nepensea Road in South Mumbai accompanied by a household servant when a car insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent No.4, collided with the young boy causing serious injuries. His brain was severely damaged. He remained in the hospital in an unconscious state for several months. His parents brought him home setting up a nursing station at home and administered all necessary treatment. Though several months later, he regained consciousness, his brain injuries left him paraplegic. Further, treatments, therapies and cures failed to have the desired effect. His mental growth also stunted. Ever since the date of the accident, he is left completely bed ridden, needs constant attention even for routine activities.

2. On his behalf, his father had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Greater Mumbai. He had initially sought a compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, which was subsequently revised to Rs.15 lakhs. Yet another application was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal raising the claim to Rs.50 lakhs. The Tribunal, however, did not find any evidence of such application having been allowed.

3. More than 10 years after the accident, the Tribunal disposed of the Claim Petition by award dated 30.3.1990. The Tribunal held that the driver of the car was solely negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads such as future loss of income; pain; shock and suffering; loss of amenities of life; cost of medical treatment, etc. and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the owner and the insurance company with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the Claim Petition till realisation. The Tribunal also directed that if this amount is not paid within three months, the rate of interest payable would be 12% p.a. on the unpaid amount.

4. By the time the Tribunal disposed of the Claim Petition, the petitioner had become major. He was brought on record in his personal capacity. He filed First Appeal before the Bombay High Court against the said judgment and award of the Claim Tribunal and sought enhancement of the compensation. Several years later his appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 21.11.2014. The learned Single Judge awarded total compensation of Rs.39,92,000/- to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. The insurance company challenged the said judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The said SLP came to be dismissed on 5.5.2015.

6. In an Execution Petition filed by the petitioner, the insurance company deposited an amount of Rs.1,42,04,415/- pursuant to the judgment of the High Court after deducting tax at source. According to the petitioner, no TDS should have been deducted. Under protest, however, he withdrew the compensation amount of Rs.1,42,04,415/-. The break-up of the amount payable to the petitioner would show that on the principal sum of Rs.39,9