Judgment ( 1. ) THE appeals have been preferred by the claimant as well as the insurer aggrieved by the award dated 23. 9. 2005 passed by M. A. C. T. , Khandwa in Claim Case No. 8 of 2005. ( 2. ) CLAIMANT Santosh aged 20 years filed a claim petition on account of personal injuries sustained by him in an accident dated 11. 6. 2006. He was travelling in the tractor in the capacity of his being a labourer in the tractor used for carriage of sand for construction of well in the agricultural field of Shanta Bai, owner of tractor. Tractor was driven by Rajesh in a rash and negligent manner and it was insured with national Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimant suffered fracture of vertebrae due to which he suffered paralysis of both legs resulting into 100 per cent permanent disablement. He has lost control in urinary process and other natural calls owing to paralysis. He would not be able to walk in his lifetime and to render any kind of work. Compensation of Rs. 14,60,000 was claimed. It was claimed that he was an agriculturist, he used to render labour and earn Rs. 40,000 per annum of which he has been deprived off. ( 3. ) THE owner and driver in their reply denied their liability on the ground that driver was not negligent. Even otherwise driver was holding valid and effective driving licence, vehicle was insured, liability, if any, to be indemnified by the insurer. ( 4. ) THE insurer denied its liability on the ground that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, hence there was breach of policy. Tractor was used for different purpose than agriculture. ( 5. ) THE Tribunal has found that accident was outcome of rash and negligent act of driving of tractor by Rajesh. Claimant was not negligent. The claimant has incurred 100 per cent permanent disablement. Compensation of Rs. 2,18,000 has been awarded, driver was holding valid and effective driving licence, tractor was being used for the purpose connected with the agriculture, hence there was no violation of terms and conditions of policy, liability has been held to be joint and several of driver, owner and insurer to make payment of compensation. Compensation of Rs. 2,18,000 has been awarded, driver was holding valid and effective driving licence, tractor was being used for the purpose connected with the agriculture, hence there was no violation of terms and conditions of policy, liability has been held to be joint and several of driver, owner and insurer to make payment of compensation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has come up in appeal so as to contend that there was breach of policy. ( 6. ) MR. Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for claimant has submitted that inadequate compensation has been granted considering 100 per cent permanent disability incurred by the claimant, young person of 20 years has been crippled for his lifetime. In such cases of 100 per cent permanent disability compensation has to be not only reasonable but on higher side. The claimant was unmarried, he has lost control on the urinary process and other natural calls owing to the injury sustained. He would not be able to perform any kind of work. The Claims Tribunal has failed to award the compensation under different heads, thus the compensation be suitably enhanced. ( 7. ) MR. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Shrawan Tiwari for insurer has submitted that there was breach of policy as driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The original licence was not produced, consequently the insurer ought to have been exonerated. Even otherwise, just compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. No case for further enhancement in the appeal is made out. ( 8. ) FIRST we come to the question of compensation to be awarded on account of 100 per cent permanent disability caused to the claimant. In view of statement of Dr. A. N. Vajpayee, CW 3, it is clear that claimant has suffered fracture of vertebrae, he has lost control of urinary process and other natural calls, he has suffered paraplegia on both legs, he was not able to walk and would not be able to perform any kind of work, he would be bedridden for his lifetime. He has suffered 100 per cent permanent disability. In the circumstances we affirm finding of the Claims Tribunal that disability caused to the claimant is 100 per cent. He has suffered 100 per cent permanent disability. In the circumstances we affirm finding of the Claims Tribunal that disability caused to the claimant is 100 per cent. Coming to the income of the claimant, Suresh, CW 2, has stated that Rs. 100 per day used to be paid for the labour to be rendered. Apart from that the claimant had bright future prospects ahead, thus considering the future prospects also his income is taken at Rs. 100 per day, Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs 36,000 per annum, age of the claimant was 20 years, multiplier of 16 is applicable, same is applied, thus compensation on account of 100 per cent permanent disability comes to Rs. 36,000 x 16 = Rs. 5,76,000, apart from that we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of chances of marriage, Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering, for about 9 months treatment had to be obtained continuously, thus on account of medical expenditure we affirm award of Rs. 38,000 made by the Claims tribunal, we award a sum of Rs. 5,000 for attendant, Rs. 10,000 for special diet and rs. 3,000 for conveyance, for the aforesaid period. Thus total compensation comes to: Thus, the total compensation comes to rs. 7,57,000 (rupees seven lakh fifty-seven thousand ). The compensation enhanced by this court to carry the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. ( 9. ) COMING to the submission raised by the insurers counsel that original licence was not produced. Admittedly photocopy of the licence was produced. It was possible for the insurer to make verification of the licence on the basis of particulars furnished as the licence was seized in the criminal case. Insurer has not adduced any evidence to prove that licence held was forged. Rajesh, NAW 1 has produced the licence, thus the finding recorded by the claims Tribunal that driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle which he was driving is found to be proper and is hereby affirmed. No other submission has been raised. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of these appeals. Appeal allowed.