Rajiv Sharma & Satish Chandra,JJ. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. Issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the fact that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in the impugned judgment insofar as it awarded interest from the date of passing of the judgment, instead of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 5.4.2012, which is a judicial decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as statutory provision. 3. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimant, for the enhancement of the compensation, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Balrampur in Claim Petition No.10 of 2009. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.01.2009, at about 01.00 in the noon, the deceased Sri Pramod Kumar was going on his motorcycle. When he reached near jail (under construction) village Mahadev Misra, District Balrampur, from the opposite direction, a truck bearing number M P 19/1753 was coming, whose driver was driving it carelessly, rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle. The necessary FIR was lodged. The deceased died on the spot. The claimants-appellant have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, who after examining the entire evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,47,000/- along with the interest @ 6% from 05.04.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation is meager one. He further submits that the compensation was granted from the date of 05.04.2012, but the same has to be granted from the date of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Lastly, he made a request that the compensation may kindly be enhanced. 6. After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that the truck was insured with the M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-opposite party no.3. On the date of accident, policy was alive and both the drivers were having? valid driving licence. The deceased was aged about 28 years. He was B.T.C. trained person. Though the salary of the teacher at the relevant time was Rs.18,000/- per month, but in the instant case, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was not employed, he was merely possessing the qualification, so the income was estimated @ Rs.10,000/- per month.? Out of it, 1/3rd was deducted. He was B.T.C. trained person. Though the salary of the teacher at the relevant time was Rs.18,000/- per month, but in the instant case, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was not employed, he was merely possessing the qualification, so the income was estimated @ Rs.10,000/- per month.? Out of it, 1/3rd was deducted. The multiplier of 18 was rightly applied by looking the age of the deceased. 7. The genetics of the interest may be traced from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1964. Erstwhile Section 110-CC of that Act provides for awarding of interest where any claim was allowed prior to that there was no statutory provision for awarding interest. The object of the interest is that claimants have been deprived of the compensation amount would have been paid forthwith they could have deposited in the bank and could have secured interest or could have utilized it much more usefully. The amount of compensation, in fact, became due on the date when the accident took place but Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the interest cannot be awarded earlier than the date of claim made. The said Section runs as under:- "171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.- Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid as such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf." 8. In the case of Union of India v. P.S.Mahal, AIR 1976, J.& K. p. 88, it was held that the interest should be payable from the date of the presentation of the claim before the Tribunal. Interest has normally to be awarded from the date of making the claim unless there are goods reasons for making a deviation, as per the ratio laid down in Sonoo Keki v. Bishwanath Singh, 1987 A.C.J., p. 458-.460 (Alld.). Thus, now it is well settled position that the interest cannot be awarded from the date of accident but it can be awarded from the date of making the claim. The liability to pay interest is an independent liability and excluded from the liability to pay compensation. Thus, now it is well settled position that the interest cannot be awarded from the date of accident but it can be awarded from the date of making the claim. The liability to pay interest is an independent liability and excluded from the liability to pay compensation. Payment of interest is allowable in view of Section 171, of the Act, if the Tribunal in its discretion so directs. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 subsequently empowers the Tribunal to award interest at such rate as it may specify in that behalf in the award, it cannot be said that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure would govern the award. Section 171 gives discretion to the Tribunal to award reasonable amount of interest after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no prohibition that it shall not award interest at a particular rate. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal awarding interest from the date of making the claim is illegal and erroneous as per the ratio laid down in the case of Abati Bezbaruah (supra). Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2001 (2) SCC 9 . The similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & others reported in 2002 (2) T.A.C. 721 (S.C.). 9. 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.) 10. 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.) 10. 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.). 11. 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 insurance company will pay the amount of Rs.14,47,000/- granted by the Tribunal along with the interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 12 Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed at the admission stage. ________________