R. DEVDAS, J.

1. The claimant and the Insurance Company are in appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.221/2006.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company seeks to justify the award passed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company contends that the vehicle involved in the accident is Light Goods Vehicle. It is therefore, contended that the driver possessing a driving license to drive 'Light Goods Vehicle-Non Transport' is not authorized to drive the Light Goods Vehicle-Transport. It is therefore, contended that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question, since he had no endorsement for driving a transport vehicle.

3. On this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res-integra and the same is settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in, (2017) AIR SC 3668.

4. It has been held in Mukund Dewangan case that in one class of vehicle, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicle, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicle as Light Motor Vehicle includes Transport Vehicle also and a holder of Light Motor Vehicle license can drive all vehicles of class including Transport vehicles. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant was studying in 10th standard, when the accident took place on 07/09/2006. The complainant suffered severe crush injury on his right foot. The complainant had to undergo surgery/amputation of the right foot, just above the ankle. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards 'Loss of marriage prospects', 'Future Treatment' and 'Loss of expectation of life' and 'Loss of future earning capacity'. In this regard, the learned counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala v. M. Malathi reported in, (2014) AIRSCW 2973.

6. It is seen that in the case of V.Mekala (supra) the victim of the accident and complainant was also studying in 10th standard and the accident took place on 11/04/2005. It has been held by the Apex Court that the victim would have a better future in terms of educational career to acquire basic or master degrees in professional courses and she could have got a suitable, either public or private employment but on account of permanent disability she suffered due to injuries sustained by her in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her and therefore, she is entitled to compensation as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Raj Kumar, R.D. Hattangadi and Govind Yadav. It has also been held that the undisputed fact of inflation of money in the country should also be taken into account by the Tribunal and Appellate Court while awarding compensation to the claimant, as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav, which has reiterated the position in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan s case, reported in, (2009) AIRSCW 6999.

7. The Apex Court has taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly Notional Income for computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of 'Loss of Income'. It was noted by the Apex Court that the High Court has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of income based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in catena of cases. Therefore, it was held that the claimant is entitled to 50% increase under the head, as laid down in the case of Santosh Devi, (2012) AIR SC 2185.

8. As regards the compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering and mental agony', it was held that the High Court, after recording concurrent finding with the award passed by the Tribunal, has not recorded the nature of the permanent d