JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. Claimant has filed this appeal under Section 110-Dof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for enhancement of the compensation awarded in M.V.C. No. 68/79 vide award, dated 2nd May, 1985 by Additional Motor Acqidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. On 6.1.1977the appellant who was a pillion rider on a motor cycle met with an accident by the use of motor vehicle, i.e. Jeep No. MPD 8349 owned by respondent No. 4, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver as a result of which the motor cyclist and pillion rider received severe multiple injuries. The claimant who is a photographer by profession was a pillion rider who received the simple communited fracture of the shaft of right femur and a compound communited fracture of right tibia and febula as a result of which he. was admitted in the hospital upon whom operation was performed on7.1.1977.He was dischargedon 2.2.1977. Again he was admitted on 8.3.1977 and discharged on 22.3.1977. Because of the injuries and operation performed by Dr. O.P. Sharma, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who opined that because of the operation the appellant suffered 1.75" shortening in the right leg restricting movement of knee and ankle joints and wasting of muscles of thigh. Again after performing curating on 19.111977 Dr. O.P. Sharma advised him to consult Dr. K.T. Dholakia, an eminent Orthopaedic Surgeon of India who also performed operation for the permanent disability but the permanent disability was not reduced. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- in various heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- in the head of permanent disability and Rs. 7,370/- towards hospital charges, medicines and special diet. On the total amount of compensation the interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. 3. Mr. A.G. Dhande, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that compensation awarded is inadequately low as the claimant remained under prolonged treatment right from 7.1.1977 till 19.11.1977. A huge amount expenditure was incurred in treatment, but the disability could not be repaired. For pain and sufferings no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. Besides the Tribunal ought to have awarded for loss of earning for the period in which the appellant remained under treatment. A huge amount expenditure was incurred in treatment, but the disability could not be repaired. For pain and sufferings no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. Besides the Tribunal ought to have awarded for loss of earning for the period in which the appellant remained under treatment. Counsel cited three comparable decisions, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.R.Vijayarajan and Anr. 1992 ACJ 663 Kerala, Thanka v. Chinnappa Gounder and Ors. 1992 ACJ 669 Kerala and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Jagjeet Singh and Ors. 1991 ACJ 690 Allahabad. 4. It was contended by Mr. V.P. Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, that the accident occurred in 1977, therefore, recent comparable cases cannot be considered to enhance the compensation. It is also contended that the appellant did not claim any amount of interest even then the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment, hence in that count also no amount deserves to be awarded. The compensation so awarded is fair and just, hence no interference is warranted in appeal. 5. The task of assessment of damages for non-pecuniary damage in personal injury actions is a difficult one, for human sufferings resulting from any serious bodily injury cannot from its very nature be valued in terms of money. But as the injured can be awarded only monetary compensation the Courts make an endeavour as best as they can to quantify non-pecuniary damage in terms of money having regard to the injury and damage resulting from it. In the process of application, the wide discretion that the Courts exercise in making awards of compensation, like any other judicial discretion, has canalized itself into a set of rules. These rules are: (1) The amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation; (2) Regard must be had to awards made in comparable cases; and (3) The sums awarded should to a considerable extent be conventional. It is only by adherence to these self-imposed rules that the Courts can decide like cases in like manner and bring about a measures of predictability of their awards. These considerations are of great importance if administration of justice in this field is to command the respect of the community. See the decision of this Court in case of P. Ramanujaiyya v. Harish Kumar and Ors. These considerations are of great importance if administration of justice in this field is to command the respect of the community. See the decision of this Court in case of P. Ramanujaiyya v. Harish Kumar and Ors. M. A. No. 361/87, decided on 7.2.1996 wherein decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Vedmitra Vohara and Ors. 1970 ACJ 189 was followed. 6. On the evidence adduced by the parties it is evident that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability and remained under a long treatment. He was opera ted twice at Bhopal and once in Bombay. Even then his permanent disability was not set right. The claimant by profession is a photographer and has to move about for his livelihood at various places which has been restricted by the disability which he has suffered. Therefore, considering the nature of injury which has certainly reduced the earning capacity of the appellant/climant and the comparable cases cited by the Counsel for the appellant/claimant and the life long inconvenience, sufferings, hardship, dis-comfort, frustration and mental stress, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deserves to be increased to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- deserves to be awarded for pain and sufferings besides the amount awarded by the Tribunal for the pecuniary loss suffered. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 67,3707- making it to a round figure Rs. 67,500/- which will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 7. However, in the circumstances, we are not inclined to award interest for IB the whole period for two reasons, proceedings before the Tribunal remained pending for eight years, the application for compensation was filed on 1.6.1977 and the award was pronounced on 2.5.1985. Thereafter the appeal filed in this Court on 6.8.1985 has come up for hearing today, for that delay in the disposal of the claim petition and the appeal Insurance Company cannot be said to be at fault. Therefore, it cannot be made to suffer for delay in disposal of the claim petition before the Tribunal and appeal before this Court. Hence, we direct that the claimant/appellant would be entitled to interest only f6r a period of ten years at the rate of 12% per annum. Therefore, it cannot be made to suffer for delay in disposal of the claim petition before the Tribunal and appeal before this Court. Hence, we direct that the claimant/appellant would be entitled to interest only f6r a period of ten years at the rate of 12% per annum. Respondent No. 3 shall deposit the amount of compensation so enhanced less the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest within a peried of two months from the date of supply of the copy of this order. The appellant to supply copy of the order to the Insurance Company. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed, award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicate hereinabove. Respondent No. 3 shall also bear the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 750/-.