JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

(In Re: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 1 of 2020)

1. Heard Sri. Nigamendra Shukla for the appellant on the review petition.

2. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the review is meant for a very limited purpose. It does not challenge the award or the judgment but the challenge is to the approach of the Insurance company.

3. In the judgment as the Insurance company has not been directed to deposit the amount within a particular time though one and a half year has elapsed, the amount has not been deposited.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and Others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.).

5. It is further orally conveyed that even if the amounts will be deposited, the Insurance company normally deducts TDS. The judgment is reviewed and at the end:

“(i) On depositing the amount in the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any.

(ii) Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma vs. Venugopal, 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because appl