IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.159/2022 Date of Decision: 11th July, 2025. National Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Kamlesh (deceased) through LRs. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Srishit Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondent No.7. Notice not issued to respondents No.1 to 6. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.01.2022, passed in Execution Proceedings bearing registration No.56/2021 qua award dated 25.04.2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Mandi, District Mandi, titled Kamlesh through her legal heirs Vs. G.H.V. India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, petition and documents appended along with. 3. The total awarded amount, in the case at hand, was Rs.8,55,900/- and on the date of deposit i.e. 07.08.2019, it had amounted to Rs.10,10,384/-. A deduction of Rs.38,621/- was made by the petitioner on account of TDS. The deposit of TDS by the Executing Court was found to be violative of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.10.2014 in CWPIL No.9/2014, titled Court On Its Own Motion Vs. HP State Cooperative Bank Limited, wherein it has been held that amount awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not income but it is damages awarded in view of death or bodily injury suffered in vehicle accident. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that amount equal to TDS along with the interest has already been refunded by the petitioner company to the claimants. By way of this petition, the petitioner’s company seeks refund of 3 amount deposited as TDS, in order to avoid double payment of TDS amount. 4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that they would have no impediment in releasing the TDS wrongly deposited, in the case at hand, provided the petitioner furnishes details thereof in Form 26B within four weeks from today. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of and respondent No.7 is directed to refund the TDS along with the interest, if any, to the petitioner/insurance company within ten weeks from date of receiving information thereof, which shall be supplied by the petitioner/Insurance Company within four weeks from today, as per Rules applicable (Form 26B). 6. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11h July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)