2026:HHC:31475 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 670/2025 Decided on: 24.07.2026 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited …..Petitioner Versus Nirmala Devi & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma & Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondent No.5. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) CMP No. 28238/2025 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the applicant i.e. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Room No. 900 A, 9th Floor, K.G. Mittal, Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai, is impleaded as respondent No.5. The application stands disposed of. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 CMPMO No. 670/2025 The present petition has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 22.10.2021 and 22.8.2025, as passed by the Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Una, District Una, in execution petition No. 32/2018, titled as Nirmla Devi & ors. vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The total awarded amount, in the case at hand, was Rs.8,19,477/- and on the date of deposit i.e. 15.11.2017, it had amounted to Rs.7,37,123/-. A deduction of Rs.82,354/- 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. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that amount equal to TDS along with the interest has already been 3 refunded by the petitioner company to the claimants. By way of this petition, the petitioner’s company seeks refund of 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.5 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. 5 is directed to refund the TDS along with the interest, if any, to the petitioner/insurance company within forty days 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. (Romesh Verma) 24.07.2026 Judge (pankaj)