ORDER : 1. This civil revision preferred under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in M.A.C.T. Execution Case No.10 of 2013 has directed the applicant-company to deposit Rs.51,416/- holding that amount towards T.D.S. (Tax Deducted at Source) has been deducted illegally from the award amount, which was awarded to the claimants/non-applicants herein. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- (i) The claimants/non-applicants No.1 to 5 preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act of 1988) claiming compensation for death of Keshvar Das on 07.01.2013 impleading owner, driver, and applicant – Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur after full-fledged inquiry, by award dated 11.02.2015 passed an award of Rs.8,32,000/- along with interest of 9% from the date of application i.e. 04.03.2013 which was directed to be paid within one month from the date of award passed failing which 2% penal interest shall be awarded if the said amount was not paid CR No. 40 of 2020 within the stipulated time. The amount of compensation was duly apportioned by the learned Claims Tribunal holding that the non-applicant No.1 would be entitled for 5% of the award amount, non-applicant No.2 would be entitled for 20% and non-applicants No.3 to 5 would be entitled for 75% of award amount each along with cost. Being aggrieved against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Insurance Company – applicant herein preferred MAC No.408 of 2015 before this Court in which the liability of the Insurance Company was affirmed, however, order directing penal interest was set aside. Being aggrieved against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Insurance Company – applicant herein preferred MAC No.408 of 2015 before this Court in which the liability of the Insurance Company was affirmed, however, order directing penal interest was set aside. Thereafter, the applicant – Insurance Company deposited the compensation amount without penal interest as set aside by this Court, but deducted an amount of Rs.51,416/- from the claimants compensation, holding it to be the amount of T.D.S. deducted as the interest amount exceeded Rs.50,000/- which the claimants/non-applicants herein objected and filed an application on 11.12.2019 to which the learned Claims Tribunal held that per claimant per year the amount of interest is less than Rs.50,000/-, therefore, in accordance with Section 171 of the Act, 1988 read with Section 194-A (3)(ix)and (ixa) of the Income Tax, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act of 1961), the amount of TDS could not have deducted and the learned Claims Tribunal directed the applicant herein for depositing the amount of Rs.51,416/-. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 the applicant has preferred this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC. 3. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in directing the amount of TDS Rs.51,416/- which has been deducted towards interest to be deposited by the impugned order as Rs.8,32,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.03.2013 was awarded and the interest amount on the said amount comes to Rs.2,57,078/- on which 20% TDS has been deducted as per Section 194A(3)(ix) and (ixa) of the Act, 1961, which is strictly in accordance with law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his case he would rely upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kala Bai and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4673. 4. None appears on behalf of the non-applicants though served. In that view of the matter this Court has requested Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate, who was present in the Court, to which he has graciously agreed to assist the Court and accordingly, made oral submission as well as submitted written submission. 5. I have heard Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. In that view of the matter this Court has requested Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate, who was present in the Court, to which he has graciously agreed to assist the Court and accordingly, made oral submission as well as submitted written submission. 5. I have heard Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae, considered their submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The question for consideration would be whether the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs.51,416/- under Section 194A of the Act, 1961, deducted towards TDS from the amount of interest awarded on amount of compensation under Section 171 of the Act, 1988 ? 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 194A(3)(ix) and (ixa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which states as under:- “194A. Interest other than “Interest on securities”. – (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force: (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) to (viii) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 Accidents 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;” 8. In view of Section 194A(1) of the Act, 1961, the liability to deduct tax on payment of interest would arise on making payment of any income by way of interest to a resident. Resident has been defined under Section 2(42) of the 1961 Act, which states as under:- “(42) “resident” means a person who is resident in India within the meaning of Section 6;” 9. Resident has been defined under Section 2(42) of the 1961 Act, which states as under:- “(42) “resident” means a person who is resident in India within the meaning of Section 6;” 9. Section 6 of the 1961 Act provides that any individual, HUF, company etc. satisfying the conditions mentioned therein is covered within the meaning of the resident in India. 10. Under Section 194A(1) of the Act, 1961, the deduction of tax at source is permissible while paying income by way of interest to a resident. A combined reading of Section 194A, Section 2(42) and Section 6 of the Act, 1961 makes it vividly clear that each individual claimant in an award of the Tribunal, is a resident for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. 11. In the case where claimants are more than one, like present case in which there are 5 claimant and the Tribunal has apportioned the compensation amount and the amount payable by way of interest to each of the claimant is ascertainable from the award amount of the Tribunal awarded to five claimants, then for the purpose of deducting tax at source under Section 194A of the Act, 1961, the interest income of each of the claimants is to be taken into account separately and the interest income of all the claimants who are separate residents within the meaning of Section 2(42) read with Section 6 of the Act, 1961, cannot be clubbed together. If such a clubbing is allowed that will not only be contrary to the provisions of Section 194-A of the Act, 1961 and their interest on individual income may not exceed the limit prescribed for TDS. 12. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Draupadibai and others, 2011 MPLJ (1) 251 has held that once the compensation amount is apportioned by the Tribunal amongst the claimants and apportionment of the interest is done then each of the claimants being ‘a resident’ separately becomes entitled to receive ascertained sum awarded to him. It was further held that the Tribunal in such a case while executing the award only acts as a conduit so that the respective claimants can receive the sum awarded to them. It was further held that the Tribunal in such a case while executing the award only acts as a conduit so that the respective claimants can receive the sum awarded to them. The principles of law laid down in the Draupadibai (supra) has been followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Kala Bai (supra) and it has been held in para 17 as under:- “17. This Court in the aforesaid three cases i.e. Ramlal, Smt. Swaroopi Bai; and Draupadibai (supra) has consistently held that the tax is payable on the interest accrued on the amount of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act with a rider that the interest should not be more than Rs.50,000/- per claimant per financial year.” 13. In terms of Section 194A(3)(ix)(ixa) of the Act, 1961, if income covered by Section 194A(1) does not exceed Rs.50,000/-, the provisions of sub-section (1) will not apply. The term 'such income' in sub-section (3)(ixa) refers to the interest income covered by sub-section (1), therefore, a reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3)(ixa) together makes it clear that it is the interest income of a resident in a financial year which is to be taken into account for calculating the limit of Rs.50,000/-. The term “Aggregate of such income” employed in Section 194A(3)(ixa) may apply in a case, where interest income is credited or paid to a claimant for more than one claim in a financial year. It is held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) in paras 12 & 13 as under:- “12. In terms of sub-section 194A(3)(ix) if income covered by section 194A(1) does not exceeds Rs. 50,000, the provisions of sub-section (1) will not apply. The word 'such income' in sub-section (3)(ix) refer to the interest income covered by sub-section (1), therefore, a reading of sub-section (1) and subsection (3)(ix) together makes it clear that it is the interest income of a resident in a financial year which is to be taken into account for calculating the limit of Rs. 50,000. Words "Aggregate of such income'' in section 194A(3)(ix) may apply in a case, where interest income is credited or paid to a claimant for more than one claim in a financial year. 50,000. Words "Aggregate of such income'' in section 194A(3)(ix) may apply in a case, where interest income is credited or paid to a claimant for more than one claim in a financial year. Thus, section 194A provides for clubbing of all the interest income of "a resident" (claimant) but it would be misreading of the section to hold that it provides for clubbing of interest income of all the claimants for the purpose of calculating the limit of Rs. 50,000 under section 194(3)(ix), even when interest payable to each claimants is ascertainable. 13. It is however, made clear that the aforesaid interpretation of section 194A of the 1961 Act applies only in cases where the compensation amount has been apportioned and the interest payable to each of the claimants is ascertainable but the position may be different when no such apportionment is done by the Tribunal in the award and interest payable to each claimant separately is not ascertainable at the time of depositing the interest amount before the Tribunal.” 14. Not only this, the Supreme Court in the matter of K.S. Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income, Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0250/1989 while dealing with the interest on enhanced compensation has held that while dealing with the payment of accrual of interest on compensation amount awarded in land acquisition, when compensation is enhanced by the order of a District Court/High Court on a reference under Section 18, interest cannot be taxed all in a lump sum on the date on which the court passes an order for enhanced compensation, but it has to be spread over on an annual basis, right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of the order of the said Court on a time basis and held as under:- “2…... That leaves only the third question for consideration. This question is regarding the point of accrual of interest on compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, where such compensation is enhanced by the order of a District Court/High Court on a reference under Section 18 or further appeals. That leaves only the third question for consideration. This question is regarding the point of accrual of interest on compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, where such compensation is enhanced by the order of a District Court/High Court on a reference under Section 18 or further appeals. By our judgment in Tax Referred Case No. 3 of 1976 (Rama Bai v. CIT MANU/SC/0448/1989 : [1990]181ITR400(SC), we have held that such interest cannot be taxed all in a lump sum on the date on which the court passes an order for enhanced compensation but that it has to be spread over on an annual basis right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of the order of the court on a time basis.” 15. Similarly, in the matter of Rama Bai and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P, Hyderabad and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 699, the Supreme Court has held that dealing with the amount of interest under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the interest payable cannot be taken to have accrued on the date of order of the Court granting enhanced compensation but has to be taken as having accrued year after year from the date of delivery of possession of the lands till the date of such order, which in the present case would accrue on the date of application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 16. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that since in the instant case compensation amount had already been apportioned between five claimants by the award of learned Claims Tribunal and in that view of the matter the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding by the impugned award that the interest amount per claimant per financial year would not exceed Rs.50,000/- and the said interest amount is less than Rs.50,000/-, therefore, amount in question cannot be deducted by virtue of provision contained in Section 194A(3) and (ixa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that such amount could not have been deducted under Section 194A(3) read with (ixa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is strictly in accordance with law. It is neither perverse nor contrary to law. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that such amount could not have been deducted under Section 194A(3) read with (ixa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is strictly in accordance with law. It is neither perverse nor contrary to law. I do not find any merit in the instant civil revision, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, the applicant – Company is directed to deposit the said amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the impugned order was passed on 25.02.2020. No order as to cost(s). 18. While parting with record, I record my deep sense of appreciation for valuable assistance, rendered by Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate, in short notice.