Rajiv Sharma & Satish Chandra,J. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant, for the enhancement of the compensation, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri in Claim Petition No.339 of 2009 (Hari Sewak @ Bhagat Purwar & others Vs. Jahangir & others). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2009, at about 3.40 p.m., the deceased Smt. Bitto Devi was going in a Jeep bearing number U.P. 31/0936 from Lakhimpur Kheri to her house. When she reached near Sisaiya Road, from the opposite direction, a truck bearing number U.P. 21 N/7060 was coming, whose driver was driving it carelessly, rashly and negligently and collided with the Jeep. The deceased succumbed injuries and died in the hospital. The claimants-appellant have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, who after examining the entire evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,40,500/- against the insurance company. Still not being satisfied, the appellants-claimant have filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, Sri Akash Deep Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation is meager one. The deceased was running a milk dairy in addition to the embroidery netting etc. but notional income of Rs.3000/- was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Lastly, he made a request for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. Both the drivers were holding valid driving licence and the truck was insured with opposite party no.3-I.C.I.C.I. Lomward Insurance Company Ltd. and on the date of accident, Policy was alive. The Tribunal after examining the site plan and witnesses observed that it was a contributory accident. So, the liability was fixed in the ratio of 60% and 40% between the truck and jeep. The only disputed point is the amount of compensation. 5. From the record, it appears that the deceased was in the age ground of 41 to 45, so the multiplier of 14 was rightly applied. In the absence of any documentary evidence/proof, the notional income of Rs.3000/- was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The same also appears reasonable as per the ratio laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another, (2008) 2 TAC 394 SC. In the absence of any documentary evidence/proof, the notional income of Rs.3000/- was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The same also appears reasonable as per the ratio laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another, (2008) 2 TAC 394 SC. There were five dependents of the deceased, so ¼th was deducted from the income for personal purposes. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears reasonable. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein except the date of interest. 6. It may be mentioned that in the case of Helen C. Rebellw Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ( AIR 1998 SC 3191 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation is not a source of profit or earning. 7. In the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded simple interest @ 8% from the date of judgment, but in the case of Durga Pd. Singh & another Vs. Bhola Singh & others (FAFO No.875 of 2006, decided by this Court) 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- 1. Parikh Engineering and Body Building Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pramila Karwa & others, reported in 2005 (1) T.A.C. 694 (Jhar.) 2. Smt. Chameli Wati & another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others, reported in (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 503 and 3. Bijoy Kumar Duggar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & others reported in 2006(1) T.A.C. 969 (S.C.) 8. This view was also followed in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi & others v. Chandra Engineering Corporation, Faizabad & 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 & 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.). 9. The inspiration may also be drawn from the Arbitration & 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.). 9. 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. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 10. The appeal is partly allowed at the admission stage. However, the Insurance Company if has any grievance, liberty is granted to approach this Court by moving proper application against this order. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed at the admission stage. _____________