JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the learned counsel of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal, it transpires that the deceased Smt. Bedanti Devi was wife of claimant/appellant no.1 Sri Dorilal and mother of other two claimants. She lost her life in the accident, which was caused by a tractor under the insurance cover. 2. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- directing the Insurance Company to pay the same within two months by the impugned judgment rendered on 19.08.2013. If such amount is not paid within period, then it shall be exigible with interest of 7% per annum. 3. This award has been challenged on the ground that notional income Rs.3,000/- per mensem has wrongly been considered by the Tribunal, instead of, it should have been considered Rs.5,000/- per mensem. 4. Learned counsel of the appellant has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Company and others”, reported in 2010 (3) TAC 769 (SC), wherein, household wife lost her life as a result of the accident. In such case, it was averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- by engaging herself in painting and handcrafting and income of her husband Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal was Rs.15,416/- per mensem, so applying the standards, as laid down in the IInd Schedule, it has been contemplated under the heading that “notional income for compensation to those, who had no income prior to accident”, the income of one-third of earning of surviving spouse should be taken into consideration. 5. So, applying that standard, learned Tribunal had considered Rs.5,000/- per mensem income of the deceasedwife and that was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court, while in the present controversy, the income of husband, at all, was not even disclosed much less proving of the same. 6. So, I think in such matters, notional income has rightly been taken as the base value by the Tribunal. 7. As regards the granting of the interest, there is no strict rule in the matter that the insurance company should be asked to make the payment of interest from the date of institution of the petition. It may vary from case to case and circumstances to circumstances looking to the various facts and factors of the case. 7. As regards the granting of the interest, there is no strict rule in the matter that the insurance company should be asked to make the payment of interest from the date of institution of the petition. It may vary from case to case and circumstances to circumstances looking to the various facts and factors of the case. So, this appeal does not deserve for even admission, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.