Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Pushpa Yadav 100 Wpc/2405/2018 M/S ... on 8 January, 2019
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.914 of 2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
(Insurer of offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.18 - D
0604)
(Applicant)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Pushpa Yadav, Wd/o Late I.P. Yadav, aged about 52 years.
2. Ku. Arpana, D/o Late I.P. Yadav, aged about 24 years.
3. Ashish Yadav, S/o Late I.P. Yadav, aged about 34 years.
4. Babulal Yadav, S/o Late Vishram Yadav, aged about 75 years.
5. Smt. Yashoda Yadav, W/o Shri Babulal Yadav, aged about 71 years.
All are R/o Type-2/SS/64 Bacheli, Tahsil Dantewada, District South
Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
(Claimants)
6. Jaiman, S/o Shri Ramnath, aged about 24 years, Ronje, Police
Station Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
(Insurer of offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.18 - D
0401)
7. Shoyab Mohammad Rizvi, S/o Shakur Mohammad Rizvi, aged
about 24 years, R/o Masjidpara, Police Station Geedam, District
South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
(Owner of offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.18 - D
0401)
8. S.K. Singh, S/o Late D. Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Type-
2/102 Bacheli, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada
(C.G.)
(Driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.18 - D
0604)
9. Smt. Hemangini Singh, W/o S.K. Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o
Type-2/102 Bacheli, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar
Dantewada (C.G.)
(Non-applicants)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner: Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5: None present, though served. 2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/01/2019
1. By the impugned order, the petitioner Insurance Company's application for refund of ₹ 1,04,471/- has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company submits that while making payment of decretal amount/amount of award, ₹ 1,04,471/- was deducted towards TDS and the certificate was sent to the claimants, but by mistake that amount was not deducted while making final payment of award and when the application was made for refund of the same, that has been rejected.
3. None present for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein, though served.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Company.
5. It appears from the record that an amount of ₹ 1,04,471/- was deducted towards TDS and TDS certificate was furnished to the claimants which is in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.64/2005 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sita Kunwar and five others), decided on 14-8-2015, but while remitting the amount, the said amount of TDS was not deducted and additionally, an amount of ₹ 1,04,471/- has been paid to the claimants which the petitioner Insurance Company is entitled for refund, as tax deducted at source in shape of TDS is valid and in accordance with law. Therefore, the claimants are directed to refund the amount of ₹ 1,04,471/- to the Insurance Company, if not already refunded and further, the TDS certificate if not served to the 3 claimants, additional copy shall be served to them so that they may take advantage of the said certificate in the income tax return, if any.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma