- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.181 OF 2016 (EX) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SUSAN RAHAMAN @ AYESHA RAHAMAN WIFE OF LATE MATHIN RAHAMAN, 2. MRS SHUAIBA RAHAMAN DAUGHTER OF LATE MATHIN RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. MR MOHAMMED ZESHAN RAHAMAN SON OF LATE MATHIN RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1172, 4TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 008 BENGALURU CITY …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARISH KUMAR.V.L FOR SRI AJESH KUMAR.S, ADVOCATES) AND: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (A SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ) OFFICE AT :SHIV KRIPA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX OPPOSITE CANARA BANK, NAUPADA THANE (W) 400602 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …RESPONDENT (BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN EX.NO.2522/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM (SCCH-20) BENGALURU, CLOSING THE EXECUTION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Harish Kumar V.L. advocate for Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present Revision Petition is filed by the decree holder challenging the order passed by the Executing Court dated 06.07.2015 in Execution Petition No.2522/2012, which reads as under: “I have gone through the M/O/C filed by both side and also the calculation done by the office and gone through the certificate regarding TDS. By going through both Memo of Calculation filed by both side, it reveal out of total awarded amount of Rs.2,87,12,388/- an amount of Rs.2,68,65,417/- has been deposited by the JDr and an amount of Rs.17,39,498/- has to be deducted towards TDS which has been paid by JDr. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 So no more amount is due by JDr to the DHr. Hence, as the full amount (due) has been deposited by the JDr this petition has to be closed. This petition is closed.” 3. Admitted facts in the case on hand are as under: A claim petition came to be filed by the Decree Holders in respect of a motor vehicle accident. After thorough contest, said claim petition came to be allowed. 4. In order to execute the award, an Execution case came to be filed in Execution Petition No.2522/2012. 5. The contentions that were urged on behalf of the petitioners in this petition are that, the amount of compensation deposited by the Insurance Company is inadequate having regard to the award amount primarily on two grounds. 6. Firstly, the Insurance Company had no right to deduct the tax at source in respect of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as it is not a taxable income. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 7. Secondly, the interest calculation made by the Decree Holders is correct as there was no notice to the Decree Holders about the deposit made by the Insurance Company, so as to withdraw the compensation amount at the earliest. 8. However, learned Judge in the Executing Court did not accept the version of the Decree Holder and closed the Execution Petition. The same is called in question in the present Revision Petition. 9. After hearing the parties, this Court noticed that the Judgment Debtor—Insurance Company had no right to deduct the tax at source, as the amount of compensation awarded in a claim petition is not taxable income. Therefore, Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount of compensation representing the amount towards tax deducted at source. 10. Secondly, the interest calculation made by the Decree Holder is also correct, in view of the fact that there was no notice by the Insurance Company to the Decree Holder about the deposit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 11. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the liability of the Insurance Company seizes the moment it deposits the amount in the Court without notice to the Decree Holder so as to facilitate the decree holder to withdraw the amount in deposit at the earliest. 12. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court closing the Execution Petition for the remaining amount has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The claim made by the Decree Holder is to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. (iii) The difference of decretal amount is to be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today failing which the Decree Holder is entitled to recover the same in Execution Petition No.2522/2012 by reopening the said Execution Petition and Trial Court shall reopen the execution case and pass suitable Orders. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41647 CRP No. 181 of 2016 (iv) At the same time, the amount deducted at source towards the tax by the Insurance Company, is entitled to be recovered by the Insurance Company in accordance with law from Income Tax Department. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62