JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal is preferred mainly for enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. Except respondent No.1, all other respondents have been served. Service upon respondent No.1 may be dispensed with for the purpose of hearing of this appeal. 2. At the request of counsel for the appellant, the matter heard finally. 3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 12.04.2014 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur in claim case No.757/2011 whereby, the learned Judge has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.25,854/- only to the claimant appellant. 4. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur stating therein that on 23.09.2011 at about 09:45 A.M., when the appellant was going to market, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-19-1G-5998 came from Krishi Mandi Side, being driven rash and negligently and hit the claimant/appellant. As a result of the accident claimant/appellant received grievous injuries. As per claim petition, the claimant was 20 years of age earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the said accident, he suffered injuries on his head and ears. He got treatment for one day in MGH hospital Jodhpur, and for eight days treatment in MDM, hospital Jodhpur in which around Rs.1,50,000/- were spent, therefore, prayed in the claim petition that a sum of Rs.26,55,000/- may be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant. 5. The non-claimants No.1 and 2 driver and owner despite of opportunities, did not filed reply to the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim petition and admitting that the truck was insured with it but the averments of the claim so made were denied. In the additional pleas, stated that the driver was not having valid driving licence and there was no permit of the vehicle and as such terms and conditions of the policy have been violated, the insurance company is not liable for any compensation. It is also submitted by the insurance company that the accident occurred due to negligence of claimant. In the alternative, prayer for determination of the claim on the basis of contributory negligence. It is also submitted by the insurance company that the accident occurred due to negligence of claimant. In the alternative, prayer for determination of the claim on the basis of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has erred in awarding very meager amount of compensation and seriously erred in law and fact in limiting the claim of the appellant-claimant for a sum of Rs.25,894/- only. The amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal is against well settled law governing assessment of quantum of compensation. Claimant sustained many injuries on whole part of the body and remained indoor patient in the hospital. At the time of accident, the appellant was about 20 years. The learned Tribunal nothing awarded towards traveling expenses. Hence, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced to the extent as claimed in the petition. The learned Tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation under the head pecuniary damages for the period of admission in the hospital. Further counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider future prospects and advancement in life and career. The learned Tribunal has further erred in granting interest @ 8.5% p.a. only. It is submitted that at least 18% p.a. interest should have been awarded on the amount of compensation. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT cases, Jodhpur. 8. It is evident that on 23.09.2011 at about 09:45 P.M., when the appellant was going to market, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-19-1G-5998 came from Krishi Mandi Side, which was being driven by the driver rash and negligently hit the appellant. As a result of this claimant/appellant received grievous injuries on head, ears and upper portion of the body. 9. On perusal of the record Exhibit 8 discharge ticket, it reveals that appellant/claimant remain indoor patient for nine days and Exhibit 1 to 36 documents pertaining to treatment reveal that applicant sustained ten injuries in all. In claim petition, it has been stated that treatment cost came about Rs.1,55,000/-. But record bills and other documents regarding expenses has not been produced. On the basis of evidence on record the loss of earning capacity due to injuries is not established. In claim petition, it has been stated that treatment cost came about Rs.1,55,000/-. But record bills and other documents regarding expenses has not been produced. On the basis of evidence on record the loss of earning capacity due to injuries is not established. Looking to the overall evidence on record produced in support of the claim, quantum of compensation deserves to be enhanced and the claimant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge, MACT (First) Jodhpur with 8.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 23.09.2011 till realisation. 10. The appeal is partly allowed.