JUDGMENT By the Court.—Present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faizabad, in Claim Petition No. 175 of 1999 (Lalta and others v. Ramesh Chandra Shukla and others), for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.5.1996, at about 3.00 p.m., Sri Rohit Kumar was travelling in the Jeep No. U.P.42A/6092 from Bikapur to Faizabad. The driver of the Jeep was driving the vehicle rashly, negligently and carelessly and hit a tree which resulted overturned of the Jeep. Sri Rohit Kumar died on the spot and another person Ram Kumar got fracture. They were taken to the hospital where the deceased Sri Rohit Kumar was declared brought dead. The claimants-appellants have filed a claim petition, where the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,30,400/-. Still not being satisfied, the present appeal has been filed. 3. With this background, Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged about 25 years old and the claim petition was filed by his minor son (as he was). The deceased was running a general store as well as food-grains shop. He was having additional income from the agricultural activity. But income was taken by the Tribunal for the purpose computation is too low. It ought to have been taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Further, he submits that no funeral charges etc. were given to the appellants-claimants. He also submits that the interest will have to be given from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri Waquar Hasim, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company has justified the impugned order. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The Jeep owned by Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, and at the relevant time, Sri Chandrika Prasad was driving it, who was holding a valid driving license. No criminal case was filed, though an intimation was given to concerned police station about the accident. On the date of the accident, the Jeep in question was insured by the opposite party No. 2 and policy was alive. 6. The sole dispute is regarding the compensation. No criminal case was filed, though an intimation was given to concerned police station about the accident. On the date of the accident, the Jeep in question was insured by the opposite party No. 2 and policy was alive. 6. The sole dispute is regarding the compensation. It is claimed that the deceased Sri Rohit Kumar was running a general store and food-grains shop. He was having additional income from the agricultural activity, but no proof was given in this regard. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has estimated the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month from the food-grains shop which was in the name of the deceased. The benefit of the Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another; 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), cannot be given to the appellants for the reason that accident was prior to it. 7. In view of above, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. The deceased was married person. So, 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 667/- round off comes to Rs. 700/- will have to be deducted for personal expenses. Thus, total income comes to Rs. 2,000-700 = Rs. 1,300/- per month x 12 = Rs. 15,600/- per annum. For the age group of 25 to 30, the multiplier of 18 will have to be applied as per the Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Act. Thus, Rs. 15,600/- x 18 = Rs. 2,80,000/- is the compensation. Further, claimants are also entitled for Rs. 9,500/- for funeral charges, consortium etc., as the deceased was a married person. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 2,89,500/- only. 8. Regarding the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, it may be mentioned that awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity as per the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah. Further, the interest was awarded from the date of claimant’s application made before the Tribunal in the following cases too- (a) Parikh Engineering and Body Building Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pramila Karwa and others, 2005 (1) TAC 694 (Jhar.) (b) Smt. Chameli Wati and another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, (1986) 4 SCC 503 and (c) Bijoy Kumar Duggar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, 2006(1) TAC 969 (SC) 9. This view was also followed in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi and others v. Chandra Engineering Corporation, Faizabad and others (FAFO No. 238/1994, decided on 4.11.2008 by this Court) where it was mentioned that the interest will have to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. The inspiration may also be drawn from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby pre-reference and pendent elite period interest is directed to pay by the Apex Court in the case of B.L.Gupta Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Bharat Cooperation Group Housing Society Ltd., 2003(3) Arb. LR 570 (S.C.). 10. In the light of above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest will have to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 11. In the instant case, though the interest awarded by the Tribunal is looking on higher side, but Insurance Company did not challenge the same either by filing cross objection or an appeal. So, in this regard, no interference is required. 12. In the light of of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,89,500/- alongwith interest award by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants-appellants is partly allowed as stated above. ————