Disposed¶39

A. Sumathi v. Madhavan Pillai

Madras HC7 Aug 2025CRP/2157/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP No.2157 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Madras; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; Section 115 CPC; civil revision petition; execution petition terminated; E.P.No.493 of 2023; MCOP No.4465 of 2002; IV Judge Small Causes Court / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai; TDS deduction from motor accident award; Form 16 not issued; PAN card decree holder; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; calculation memo; disposed with directions, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to issue Form 16 evidencing the three TDS deductions and furnish it to the petitioner within six weeks; Civil Revision Petition disposed of with no costs. ¶39

A. Sumathi Vs Madhavan Pillai — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRP No. 2157 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP. No.2157 of 2025

¶7

A. Sumathi

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

Madhavan Pillai

¶10

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Mutual Building, 6^th floor, No.232, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001 ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Civil Revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the IV Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai in E.P.No.493 of 2023 in MCOP No.4465 of 2002 and allow the execution petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Shanmugaraj For respondents : Mr. P. Sankaranarayanan for R2

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CRP No. 2157 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Challenge has been made to the order terminating the Execution

¶18

Petition on the ground that the entire award amount along with interest has been paid.

¶19

Earlier, when the matter came before this Court, both sides counsel

¶20

were directed to file a calculation memo.

¶21

Today, both the counsel filed the memo of calculation.

¶22

According to the petitioner, TDS amount of Rs.77963.85 has been

¶23

deducted, which ought not to have been deducted. Hence, taking note of the

¶24

above, still a sum of Rs.1,51,604/- is payable by the Insurance Company.

¶25

Whereas, the Insurance Company filed a calculation memo

¶26

indicating that they paid excess amount of Rs.59,539/-.

¶27

The dispute is only with regard to the deduction of TDS amount.

¶28

According to the petitioner, when the matter is pending, the II

¶29

respondent ought not to have deducted 20% towards TDS, especially, when

¶30

the revision petitioner/decree holder is having pan card. But the fact remains

¶31

that TDS has been deducted for the year 2018, 2019, 2022 on three occasions.

¶32

2/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP No. 2157 of 2025

¶35

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶36

having deducted the TDS, the form 16 has not been issued by the Insurance Company. If Form-16 has been issued, they would have claimed that amount from the department.

¶37

In such view of the matter, the second respondent shall issue Form

¶38

16 evidencing the deduction of TDS on three occasions and such form shall be furnished to the petitioner herein within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39