JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 2, Insurance Company and respondent Nos. 1 and 3, owner and driver of the vehicle. 2. The matter has come up at the stage of admission but with the consent of the parties, it has been heard at length and is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. 3. The appellant, who was the claimant in the court below, admittedly sustained injury in an accident which took place on 30.5.1996 at 6.30 P.M. on G.T. Road near Jamuhar from vehicle bearing Truck No. BPM-9695. He was an M.B.B.S. Doctor earning Rs. 3,800/- per month and aged about 40 years. On account of such accident, he suffered multiple injuries resulting in permanent disfigurement of the face with slight deviation of nose. In support of the said injuries, a report of the Heritage Hospital, Varanasi was produced where he had been admitted on 31.5.1996 after the accident on the same day and on 4.6.1996, he was operated upon and discharged on 7.6.1996. The injuries were said to have been repaired and it was further stated that the following permanent defects will remain: (i) multiple scarring of the face resulting in disfigurement, and (ii) slight deviation of nose will remain provided he does not undergo corrective surgery in future. 4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that nothing has been brought on the record to consider the injuries sustained by the Doctor-claimant within the category of permanent disablement but he had sustained injury and accordingly a total amount of Rs. 46,259/- under different heads, like transport to the Hospital, nourishment, medical expenses, test towards Bio-Chemistry and loss of earning during his treatment was awarded, out of which an amount of Rs. 25,000/- had already been paid and the remaining amount of Rs.21,259/- was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the case till payment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 142(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permanent disfigurement of the forehead or face comes within the category of permanent disablement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 142(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permanent disfigurement of the forehead or face comes within the category of permanent disablement. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel that the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in not treating the case of the claimant as a permanent disablement and awarding the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier number to the income of the appellant. It is further submitted by learned counsel that several petitions were filed for referring the petitioner to the Medical Board but the same was not done. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was nothing on the record to show as to what percentage of permanent disablement had been caused as a result of disfigurement of the face. It is further submitted that the report of a Private Hospital of Varanasi has rightly not been relied upon by the Tribunal for grant of any compensation for permanent disability in the absence of any report of the Medical Board. 7. Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted hereinbelow: "142. Permanent disablement.For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving: (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member of joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face." 8. It is evident from a consideration of the above provision that a permanent disfigurement of head or face by a deeming fiction comes within the purview of permanent disablement under the Act. The only question that could have arisen is as to whether in the case of the appellant the permanent disfigurement of his face would amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement. The only question that could have arisen is as to whether in the case of the appellant the permanent disfigurement of his face would amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement. Once the said finding is recorded, then obviously the applicable multiplier has to be applied to the income of the claimant for arriving at an appropriate compensation; the entire amount being payable in case of permanent total disablement and the appropriate percentage of the same payable in the case of permanent partial disablement. 9. This Court is further of the view that the Tribunal may not have solely relied upon the certificate of a Private Hospital of Varanasi produced by the claimant but in that situation it ought to have referred the claimant-appellant to a Medical Board, even if no petition had been filed on that behalf by the claimant. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in this regard are a social welfare legislation for the benefit of the claimant and it is the duty of the Tribunal to ensure that a reasonable compensation is paid to any person, who receives injury in course of accident caused by a Motor Vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the judgment dated 23.12.2005 and award dated 13.1.2006 as amended on 6.6.2007 are set aside to the extent that the claim of the petitioner regarding permanent disfigurement of face treating the same as permanent disablement under Section 142 of the Act shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal after referring the claimant-appellant to a Medical Board for the said purpose. The other part of the judgment and award remains undisturbed. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.