ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) against the Order, dated 04.07.2016 in E.P.No.5 of 2007 in O.P.No.445 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, where under the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 43, 64 and 66 of CPC against 2nd Judgment - Debtor, for attachment of movable properties for realization of the decree amount, was ‘Allowed’. 2. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.5 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 43, 64 and 66 of CPC for attachment and sale of the E.P., schedule movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor No.2 i.e., the revision-petitioner herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,44,607/- as due under the decree in O.P.No.445 of 2002. 3. The revision-petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent/ Judgment-Debtor No.2, opposed the E.P. The contention of the revision-petitioner is that the entire amount due under the decree was deposited in the Tribunal. The contention of the decree-holder is that the judgment-debtor No.2 i.e., the revision- petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs.4,03,342/- and therefore, the revision-petitioner is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.99,123/-. 4. The decree-holder was examined as P.W.1 in the E.P., proceedings. No evidence was adduced for the Insurance Company/revision-petitioner. During cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was made that the disputed amount was deducted towards Income Tax Deductible at Source (for brevity ‘TDS’) payable on interest earned on the compensation amount payable to the decree-holder. P.W.1 in the re-examination deposed that he did not receive any information in writing from the Insurance Company regarding deduction of amount towards TDS payable on the interest earned on the compensation amount payable to the decree-holder. 5. The Trial Court held that the Insurance Company did not file any material establishing that the disputed amount was paid to the Income Tax Department towards TDS payable on interest and rejected the said contention of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal allowed the execution petition ordering attachment of the EP schedule movable properties belonging to the Insurance Company, as the Insurance Company is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.99,123/-. 6. The Tribunal allowed the execution petition ordering attachment of the EP schedule movable properties belonging to the Insurance Company, as the Insurance Company is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.99,123/-. 6. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the Insurance Company is obligated to deduct income tax at source on the amount of interest payable to the claimant thereon accrued up to the date of payment or deposit as per rules and therefore, the Insurance Company deducted the disputed amount towards TDS on interest payable to the claimant. 7. The learned counsel for the decree-holder submitted that the Insurance Company did not furnish any information either to the decree-holder or to the Tribunal to enable the decree-holder either to avail the benefit of tax payable at source or to claim refund of the tax, as the case may be and therefore, in the absence of any information, the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the amount and therefore, the Trial Court did not commit any error in its Order while allowing the execution petition. 8. In the light of above contentions, the point for consideration is as under: “Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity in the Order, dated 04.07.2016 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2007 in O.P.No.445 of 2002?” 9. POINT:- The Award amount as per the Order of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1297 and 1977 of 2007 is Rs.3,85,000/-. This Court reduced the interest from 9% to 7.5% on the award amount. Therefore, the interest from the date of petition i.e., 18.12.2002 to till the date of Stay Order i.e.,18.10.2007 for a period of 58 months at the rate of 7.5% per annum comes to Rs.1,39,562/-. The total amount, including costs, due as on 18.10.2007 is Rs.5,27,719/-. The Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing appeal and later deposited another sum of Rs.2,42,825/- as per Stay Order on 22.10.2007. The total amount deposited by the Insurance Company as on 22.10.2007 is Rs.2,67,825/-. Therefore, the outstanding amount as on 22.10.2007 is Rs.2,59,894/-; The Insurance Company is liable to pay the said sum with interest at 7.5% per annum from 23.10.2007 to till the date of deposit i.e., 23.02.2015 for a period of 88 months; The interest on the said sum of Rs.2,59,894/- for the said period is of Rs.1,42,941/-. Hence, the total amount due is Rs.4,03,342/- including EP costs of Rs.507/-. Hence, the total amount due is Rs.4,03,342/- including EP costs of Rs.507/-. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company on 13.04.2015 is Rs.3,04,219/-. Therefore, the amount due as on 13.04.2015 is Rs.99,123/-. The contention of the Insurance Company that a sum of Rs.41,266/- (Rs.33,044 + Rs.8,222) was deducted towards Income Tax payable on interest. Hence, the Insurance Company is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.57,857/-. 10. It is not the case of the Insurance Company/revisionpetitioner that it has furnished a Certificate to the claimant either under Form No.16A or of such form as may be prescribed applicable to the case intimating him the details of the TDS and to enable him either to avail the benefit of tax deducted at source or to claim refund of the tax. The Insurance Company also did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal during enquiry of the execution petition to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of the disputed amount towards TDS on interest payable to the decree-holder. 11. As per law, the Insurance Company is obligated to deduct tax at source from the amount of interest only, if only, the amount of interest payable to each claimant, if it exceeds the amount prescribed in vogue at the relevant point in time. But, in the case on hand, though the Insurance Company claimed that they have deducted a sum of Rs.99,123/- towards TDS on interest payable to the decree-holder, did not adduce any evidence to prove its case. It also did not inform the decree-holder nor furnished the Certificate, as may be prescribed, to enable him to avail the benefit of tax deducted at source or to claim refund of tax. 12. This Court in The National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam vs. Yeliminti Appanna and another, Civil Revision Petition No.994 of 2012, dated 22.04.2014. held as under: “6. To sum up, the Tribunals have to take note of the following guidelines while dealing with the aspect of determination of correctness or otherwise of the TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) in cases of Motor Accident Compensation claims. (1) The person or insurance company paying or depositing the compensation is not obligated to deduct any income tax at source on the actual compensation amount awarded. (1) The person or insurance company paying or depositing the compensation is not obligated to deduct any income tax at source on the actual compensation amount awarded. (2) Such person or insurance company is obligated to deduct tax at source from the amount of interest only, if only, the amount of interest payable to each claimant exceeds Rs.50,000/-. However, such lump sum interest amount that had accrued up to the date of payment or deposit can be taken into consideration in case of each such claimant for purpose of TDS and such lump sum interest arrived at in case of each claimant need not be spread over on annual basis even in cases where the interest accrued and payable relates to a period of more than one year. (3) In a case where the claimant is an income tax assessee and is having a PAN and furnishes the required details, then, in case of such a claimant, the percentage of deduction of tax at source shall be at the rate of 10%. But, where such claimant is not having a PAN and also fails to furnish the required form, in case of such claimant, the deduction of tax at source shall be at the rate of 20%. Thus, in cases where the Decree Holder/claimant concerned fails to submit the PAN or the required form to the Insurance Company or the payer, as the case may be, then the TDS shall be at the rate of 20%, at present. Be it noted that in case a claimant furnishes a declaration, on Form No.15G of R.29C of the IT Rules in terms of Section 197 (1A) of the IT Act or such other declaration on such Form as may be applicable, for each financial year, either to the person concerned or in the office of insurance company, in such a case the person/the insurance company is relieved of his/its obligation of payment of TDS. It is appropriate to mention that the TDS deducted on interest shall be deposited within the statutory period and the Person/the insurance company shall also file either the quarterly return or such return as prescribed and applicable to the case and shall furnish to the claimant a certificate either on Form No.16A or on such form as may be prescribed and applicable to the case to enable the claimant to either avail the benefit of the tax deducted at source or to claim refund of the tax as the case may be.” 13. Even as per the decision in Hansaguri Prafulchandra Ladhani and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2007 ACJ 1897 . relied on by the revision-petitioner, the Insurance Company is under the obligation to furnish a Certificate to the claimant, as prescribed, to enable the claimant to avail the benefit of tax deduction at source or to claim refund of the tax as per law. In the case on hand, the Insurance Company did not discharge its obligation nor placed any proof before the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has remitted the said amount i.e., the disputed amount to the Income Tax Department towards Income Tax Deductible at Source (TDS) on the interest payable to the decree-holder. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the CRP is to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is ‘Dismissed’. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.