ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. The appeals have been preferred by the claimant as well as the insurer aggrieved by award dated 23.9.2005 passed by MACT, Khandwa in Claim Case No. 8/05. 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 labour in the tractor used for carriage of sand for construction of well in the agricultural field of Smt. Shanta Bai, owner of tractor. Tractor was driven by Rajesh in rash and negligent manner and it was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimant suffered fracture of vertebrae bone due to which he suffered Paralysis of both the legs resulting into 100% 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 life time 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 then agriculture. 5. The Claims 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% 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 condition 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 the appeal for enhancement of compensation where as the insurer has come up in the appeal so as to contend that there was breach of policy. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant has come up in the appeal for enhancement of compensation where as the insurer has come up in the appeal so as to contend that there was breach of policy. 6. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for claimant has submitted that inadequate compensation has been granted considering 100% permanent disability incurred by the claimant, young person of 20 years has been crippled for his life time. In such cases of 100% permanent disability compensation has to be not on]y 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. Claims Tribunal has failed to award compensation under different heads, thus compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing with Shri Shrawan Tiwari for insurer has submitted that there was breach of policy as driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Original licence was not produced, consequently 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% 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 the legs, he was not able to walk and would not be able to perform any kind of work, he would be bed ridden for his life time. He has suffered 100% permanent disability, in the circumstances we affirm finding of the Claims Tribunal that disability caused to the claimant is 100%. Coming to the income of the claimant, Suresh (C.W. 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. Coming to the income of the claimant, Suresh (C.W. 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% permanent disability comes to Rs. 36,000x16=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/- for 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 thus :-- (i) 100% permanent disability Rs. 5,76,000/ (ii) loss of chances of marriage Rs.1,00,000/ (iii) pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/ (iv) medical expenditure Rs. 38,000/ (v) expenditure on attendant Rs. 5,000/ (vi) special diet Rs. 10,000/ (vii) conveyance Rs. 3,000/ TOTAL Rs.7,57,000/- Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 7,57,000/- (Rs. Seven lakhs fifty seven thousand only). The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 9. Coming to the submission raised by the insurer's 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 I 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.