Judgment :- 1. The 3rd respondent in OP No .85 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. The Tribunal passed an award on 19th February, 1981, the relevant portion of which originally read as follows: "In the result, the petitioner is given an award for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with 6 per cent interest from respondents 1 to 3." Subsequently, on an application by the claimant (IA No. 358 of 1981) the Tribunal clarified that interest is to run from 10-4-1976 till realisation. The amended award therefore now reads as follows: "In the result, the petitioner is given an award for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with 6 per cent interest from 10-4-1976 till realisation from respondents 1 to 3". The 3rd respondent is challenging the order on IA No. 358 of 1981 in this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant paid the entire amount as per the original award and it was thereafter that the correction was allowed. Learned counsel submitted that the order amounted to a review and the Tribunal bad no power to review its order. It was further submitted that a party is not entitled to claim interest, since the awarding of interest is discretionary. According to learned counsel, S.152 of the CPC is not applicable in this case, since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is nor a court. According to learned counsel, in the absence of specification of the date from which interest is to run, it has to betaken that interest will run only from the date of award. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant being the insurance company, the only contentions available to it are under S.96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The omission to mention the date from which interest is to run is only an accidental slip liable to be corrected under S 152 of the CPC. 4. Awarding of interest is governed by S.11000. Under that Section the Tribunal is empowered to grant interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify. The original award obviously did not specify the date from which interest is to run. 4. Awarding of interest is governed by S.11000. Under that Section the Tribunal is empowered to grant interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify. The original award obviously did not specify the date from which interest is to run. The same Tribunal which passed the award, in the order in the above said T. A., held that it was only an accidental omission. The contention that the Tribunal is not a court and it has no power under S.152 of the CPC. need not be decided in this case. This Court in various decisions has held that principles in the Code of Civil Procedure will have to be followed by Tribunals unless it is specifically excluded by statute. (See K. V. Aboo v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (1977 ACJ 446), Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma (1981 KLT 495), Mohammed v. Chakkappan (1983 KLT 854) and Abdulla v. Rent Controller. (1984 KLT 865). See also the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Jainab Bai v. Madh. Pradesh State Road Trp. Corp. (1969 ACJ 274). We are in respectful agreement with the above said judgments. 5. The non-mention of the date from which interest is to run is clearly an accidental slip or omission and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in correcting the award by inserting the date from which interest is to run. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.