ORDER This Civil revision petition has been directed against an order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge VII, Patna, cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1998. The petitioners were the claimants in Claim case No. 27 of 1988. The husband of the petitioner no. 1, who was a Govt. Servant died on 2.11.1987 in a Motor accident while he was traveling to Katihar by his Maruti Van. The said claim case was adjudicated by Smt. Rekha Kumari, the then Additional District Judge, VIII, Patna, and awarded compensation of Rs. 4, 25, 000/-, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum thereon till the date of realization. In the operative part of the order although the interest was included as mentioned above but the date from which the interest is to be paid has not been specifically mentioned. On the basis of the claims, a certificate was issued by the then Addl. District Judge VIII, Patna to the Certificate Officer, Patna for realization of the awarded amount together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim case till realization. After expiry of the claim period, the Insurance Company filed M.A. No.477 of 1996. The claimants did not file any appeal and they were satisfied with the awarded amount, as according to them because of financial constraint no appeal would be preferred. Against the issuance of the certificate to the Certificate Officer, a writ petition was filed before this Court suppressing the facts that the appeal was still pending filed by the Insurance Company. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed. On the basis of the certificate issued Misc. Certificate Case No. 32 of 1997-98 was registered and processes were initiated by the Certificate Officer for realization of a sum of Rs. 7,57,370.79 (P). After disposal of the writ petition, the Insurance Company issued cheques in favour of the Tribunal for payment to the claimant but a prayer was made not to issue the three cheques as they have got objection regarding interest portion. It was stated that when the judgment is silent regarding calculation of interest then the same should be construed as granting of interest from the date of judgment till the date of realization. The same has been objected from the side of the Claimant. It was stated that when the judgment is silent regarding calculation of interest then the same should be construed as granting of interest from the date of judgment till the date of realization. The same has been objected from the side of the Claimant. By the impugned order after considering the operative part of the initial judgment in the claim case the court below held that it should be construed as interest from the date of judgment till the realization. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned court below has committed error of law in interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal. Usually the interest is being awarded along with the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim case unless specifically it is written for some reasons interest should be calculated from the date of judgment. Various Judgments of the Apex Court have been referred from the side of the claimant, such as in the case of Smt. Chameli Wati and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other (1986) 4 S.C.C. 503 : the case of Hardeo Kaur and other Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another (1992) 2 S.C.C. 567 and in all those cases it was ordered by the Apex Court that the interest should be calculated as usual from the date of filing of the claim case. One decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court is there as reported in the case of Om Prakash Dalmia Vs. Smt. Bina saha and others (AIR 1984 Patna 77) where also the award of interest was challenged and it was held by the Division Bench that the interest should be paid by the Tribunal not earlier than the date of making the claim on interpretation of section 110-C of the old M. V. Act. The claimants are entitled to get an award from the date of death their pre-decessor in interest as per M. V. Act and it has been specified by the Act itself in granting such award the Tribunal should give interest also. Right to claim interest accrued on the death but generally the interest not being awarded from the date of death as the award depends upon filing of the claim case. In general money suit also interest is being granted pendente lite. Right to claim interest accrued on the death but generally the interest not being awarded from the date of death as the award depends upon filing of the claim case. In general money suit also interest is being granted pendente lite. Then is no reason that in the claim the interest should not be granted from the date of filing of the claim case. Only because the operative part of the award is silent about the date from which the interest is to be calculated should be construed as a general rule as has been granted of course unless there is specific reasons as the interest is to be calculated from the date of judgment. Moreover in the present case it appears that the Tribunal itself has issued certificate to the Certificate Officer by inclusion of interest from the date of filing of the claim case till the realization. Now there is no scope from going back by the Tribunal itself from the position. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab as reported in AIR 1979 Punjab-Haryana, 203, the High Court held that power to award interest on the amount of compensation is discretionary and normal rule is to grant interest from the date of claim application. There is no ground for deviation normally unless the same is specified in the judgment itself, For and on behalf of the Opp. Parties one judgment of the Apex Court has been referred as reported in the case of Indrani Raja Durai and others Vs. Madras Motors and General Insurance Company and others, (1996) 2 SCC 157 wherein the Apex Court has directed the Insurance Company to pay interest from the date of judgment of the Tribunal. Factual aspect of that case stands on different footing. In that case there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also as such the award of compensation was minimized and deduction was made due to negligence and because of such apportionment the interest was asked to be paid from the date of judgment of the Tribunal. That was deviation from the normal rule because of the peculiar situation in that case. That was deviation from the normal rule because of the peculiar situation in that case. On going through the decisions of the different High Courts and the Apex Court I also found that normal rule is to grant interest under section 110 CC of old Act from the date of claim application and in the present case although initial date has been mentioned in the judgment only normal rule would follow. Learned Tribunal should not have interpreted the judgment otherwise when the Tribunal itself has issued certificate for claiming interest from the date of filing of the claim case. After interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal thus I find that the learned Court below committed error of law and exceeded to its jurisdiction in interpreting judgment deviating from the normal rule. Thus, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby, quashed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.