JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. (CAV) - This petition is filed by the petitioner - original opponent No. 3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara (Main) in Execution No.268 of 2016 thereby dismissing the execution petition at Ex. 1. 2. Heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Krishnakumar Munshiram Agrawal, party-in-person - original claimant-respondent No. 1, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate for Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent No. 4. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had passed judgment and order in M.A.C.P. No. 1886 of 2006 and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,701/- to be paid by the petitioner to the claimant along with interest @ of 9% and cost. The petitioner did not prefer appeal and decided to satisfy the award amount of Rs. 1,20,701 + (cost) + 86,130.90 (total interest) to the claimant. 4. The award amount was paid by the respondent Insurance Company after deducting @ 20% TDS as the pan card of the applicant was not available. This is pursuant to the provisions of Section 194A, (3)(ix) and (ixa) of the Income Tax Act ("IT") as inserted by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015. The petitioner calculated the interest portion for claimant as per the award amount. It is crystal clear that interest payment to the claimant exceeds Rs. 50,000/- and hence the interest amount @ 20% was deducted. This deducted interest was pursuant to the provisions referred above. It was then deposited with the Income-Tax Department. 5. Heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has submitted that the award amount was paid by the respondent after deducting 20% TDS as the pan card of the applicant was not available. This was done pursuant to the provisions of Section 194A, (3)(ix) and (ixa) of the Income Tax Act ("IT") as inserted by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015. 6. He has submitted that the petitioner calculated the interest portion for claimant as per the award amount. It is crystal clear that interest payment to the claimant exceeds Rs. 50,000/- and hence the interest amount @ 20% was deducted. 6. He has submitted that the petitioner calculated the interest portion for claimant as per the award amount. It is crystal clear that interest payment to the claimant exceeds Rs. 50,000/- and hence the interest amount @ 20% was deducted. This deducted interest was pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act referred above. It was then deposited with the Income-Tax Department. 7. He has submitted that following provisions are relevant :- section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 145A provides for the method of accounting in certain cases; Section 56(1) relates to income from other sources. Section 206AA provides for requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number. There is also default provision under IT Act providing for penalty for not deducting TDS. Section 201 relates to consequences of failure to deduct or pay. Section 221 prescribes penalty payable when tax in default, Section 200 provides duty of a person deducting tax and Section 234E fee for default in furnishing statements. 8. He has submitted that as evidenced by the TDS certificate, Rs. 16,226/- was deducted as TDS in June, 2016. The learned Tribunal has calculated interest upto December, 2016 and hence the amount is Rs. 21,229/- as per the learned Tribunal. Lastly, he has submitted that the claimant can always claim the TDS deducted amount from the IT Department. 9. Mr. Krishnakumar M. Agrawal, party-in-person has submitted that he is 77 years old. He has submitted that he has no regular monthly income after motor accident in the year 2006. He has submitted that his income is below the taxable limit and he is not liable to pay tax. 10. He has submitted that even the learned Tribunal has considered his income as Rs. 3000/- p. m. at the time of accident in the year 2006 and the loss of income thereafter as Rs. 510/- p.m. He has submitted that while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,20,701/-with 9% interest and cost, the learned Tribunal has specifically directed to follow the guidelines for deduction of Income Tax in the case of Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 ACJ 1897 (DB) Guj. He has submitted that the petitioner has not followed the said direction of the learned Tribunal and has incorrectly deducted the income-tax amounting to Rs. 16,226/-on the total amount of interest accrued during the year 2006-2007 to 2016. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 ACJ 1897 (DB) Guj. He has submitted that the petitioner has not followed the said direction of the learned Tribunal and has incorrectly deducted the income-tax amounting to Rs. 16,226/-on the total amount of interest accrued during the year 2006-2007 to 2016. Lastly he has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 12.4.2017 in Execution Petition No. 268 of 2016 requires no interference by this Court. 11. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mrs. Mouna M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.4 has submitted that private respondent had preferred M.A.C.P. No. 1886 of 2006, where under the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 1,20,701/- to be paid to respondent No. 1 along with interest at the rate of 9% and cost. 12. He has submitted that the petitioner having accepted the award of the Tribunal has deposited the principal amount along with interest but after deducting TDS @ 20% from the interest amount at the time of depositing of TDS with the learned Claim Tribunal. Thereafter respondent No.1 preferred Execution Petition No. 268 of 2016 in M.A.C.P. No. 1886 of 2006 praying therein to make payment of TDS deducted and deposited with the Central Government. 13. He has submitted that in similar facts and circumstances of case the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharwad reported in 242 Taxmann 415 held as under :" 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 194A, however, includes those cases which would be excluded from the purview of subsection (1). Relevant portion of subsection (3) as it stood prior to 01.06.2015 amendment read as under: "194A. (3) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply - (ix) to such income credited or paid by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees." 10. The Gujarat High Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) had occasion to interpret this provision w.e.f. 01.06.2015, however, this Clause (ix) of subsection (3) of Section 194A has been omitted and is replaced by Clauses (ix) and (ixa) which read as under :" (ix) to such income credited by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. (ixa) to such income paid by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees." 11. Under Clause (ix) it sub section (3) of Section 194A of the Act, as it originally stood, requirement of deducting tax at source under sub section (1) would not apply in a case where any income is credited or paid by way of interest on compensation amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or, the aggregate amounts of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. This provision of Clause (ix) is now divided into two parts and is replaced by Clauses (ix) and (ixa). Clause (ix), in the present form, refers to such income credited by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The case of crediting of interest on compensation therefore, would fall in Clause (ix) as it stands currently. Under Clause (ixa) would fall, any payment of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or the aggregate paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. 12. It would, therefore, be wholly incorrect to read the current provision of subsection (3) of Section 194A to argue that the cases of income credited by way of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is no longer part of sub section (3) for exclusion from purview of sub section (1) of Section 194A. In other words, worded slightly differently. The case of credit of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal continues to find place in the exclusion clause contained in subsection (3) of Section 194A. In fact, it would prima facie appear that the ceiling of Rs. In other words, worded slightly differently. The case of credit of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal continues to find place in the exclusion clause contained in subsection (3) of Section 194A. In fact, it would prima facie appear that the ceiling of Rs. 50,000/- per annum for such exclusion is now done away with in case of crediting of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal while retaining such limit in cases of payment of interest on such compensation. However, we need not thresh out this last part of the issue since admittedly, in the present case, for none of the years under consideration the interest income exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. In fact, this Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) provided for further splitting up of this ceiling of Rs. 50,000/- per claimant basis. Looked from any angle, the insurance company was not justified in deducting tax at source while depositing the compensation in favour of the claimants. It therefore, cannot avoid liability of depositing such amount with the claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal had committed no error in insisting on the insurance company in making good the shortfall. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 2592 of 2012, in which, the insurance company had deposited with the Income Tax Department a sum of Rs. 7,91,971/- by way of tax on compensation of Rs. 34,39,070/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This Court allowed the claimants to seek refund of such amount from the Income Tax Department and permitted the insurance company to receive it back from the claimants as and when such refund would be made by the Income Tax Department. However, in the present case, we are not inclined to accept such a formula. Firstly, the amount in question is not very large. Secondly, in order to provide for such formula, we would have to call upon the claimants to appear before us, a luxury which poor litigants can ill afford. Thirdly, the insurance company should have properly advised itself before effecting tax at source on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) was no longer good law in view of the statutory amendments. Thirdly, the insurance company should have properly advised itself before effecting tax at source on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) was no longer good law in view of the statutory amendments. Not having done that the only course left open to the insurance company would be to approach the Income Tax Department for refund, as may be advised." Lastly he has submitted that in view of above the learned Claim Tribunal was right in directing the petitioner to pay the amount to respondent No. 1. 14. I have gone through the papers produced before me as well as the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates on both the sides as well as party-in-person. I have also gone through the decision rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharvad and Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 1727 . In the present case, the petitioner - Insurance Company deducted TDS amount from the interest accrued of awarded amount and deposited the TDS amount with Income Tax Department. The claimant - respondent No.1 filed Execution Application before the Tribunal wherein the learned Tribunal issued attachment warrant against the Insurance Company. In the present case, the petitioner - Insurance Company is not justified in deducting at source in view of the guideline issued in Hansaguri's case, reported in 2007 ACJ 1897 (Gujarat). Therefore, I am of the view that it is for the Insurance Company to approach the Income Tax Department for refund and not the original claimants. 15. With the above observations the petition is dismissed.