JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in Claim Case No. 2 of 1993 vide award dated 29.10.1993 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. 2. The circumstances and the manner in which the accident occurred are not in dispute. In the said accident the appellant who was going on scooter was dashed by the tractor No. MIL 6367, driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, in which the appellant suffered a fracture in the right leg of tibia and fibula, he remained as an indoor patient from 5.9.1988 to 13.9.1988, where he was put under plaster on 13.9.1988 which was removed after about 4 months, but, as the fracture was not rightly joined, it was re-plastered. The injury resulted in shortening of leg by half inch and permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent, as a result of which the appellant could not move and walk like a normal man. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced and taking into consideration the comparable cases, awarded compensation of Rs. 13,000/-only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation in the head of non-pecuniary damages, i.e., general damages while in the head of pecuniary damages, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- for the expenses incurred on special diet, fruits etc. and Rs. 2,000/- for medicines and Rs. 3,000/- for the period in which the appellant remained absent from duty. 4. In the opinion of this Court the Tribunal proceeded with a wrong approach. The task of assessment of damages for non-pecuniary damage in personal injury actions is a difficult one, for human suffering 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 the damage resulting from it. 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 the 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 measure 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 Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra 1970 ACJ 189 (MP)]. 5. In the case in hand, looking to the nature of injuries, comparable cases were cited before the Tribunal, but, the Tribunal did not consider the same. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, resulting in permanent disability, we are of the opinion that the minimum compensation ought to have been for the disability suffered Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for the pain and suffering, besides, the pecuniary loss so awarded by the Tribunal, thus, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 38,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization as ordinarily interest should be awarded at the rate of 12 per cent, if any authority is needed, see the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP). 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as indicated hereinabove. The respondent-company shall deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of the supply of the certified copy, less the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest. Appellant will also get the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- if pre-certified.