JUDGMENT Mr. K .Kannan, J.(Oral).- FAO No.373 of 1995 is an appeal by the Insurance Company claiming that the original issue of licence is fake but the renewal was genuine. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279 and in United India Insurance Company Versus Divinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 342 that such a licence shall be treated as fake. I set aside the finding of the Tribunal as regards liability, but hold in terms of the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) that the Insurance Company shall still pay the claimant and recover the same from the insured. 2. The appeal in FAO No.941 of 1995 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for a person, who was injured in a motor accident resulting in dislocation of the right arm with a fracture. Two doctors had been examined, who spoke about the fact that there had been a hair line fracture and there had been wasting of the right arm. The Tribunal assessed Rs.30,000/- for the disability, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. All the heads of claim have been properly addressed and on the basis of the evidence which was already passed, there is no scope for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there had been an aggravation of the injury during the course of years and there has been an additional disability which has been assessed. I cannot act on the certificate unless there is a definite medical evidence that apart from the disability that was assessed and the injuries that had been noticed, there was an aggravation of injuries and an additional disability that could have resulted over a period of years. I will allow to the petitioner an opportunity to establish any additional disability that has resulted on account of injuries by remitting the matter to the Tribunal for an adjudication relating to the details contained in the document filed as additional evidence before this Court. I am of the view that the additional evidence cannot be accepted before this Court, but, however, in view of the peculiar circumstances urged in appeal by the learned counsel that there has been an aggravation of injury, I admit that document and refer to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance in law. 4. I am of the view that the additional evidence cannot be accepted before this Court, but, however, in view of the peculiar circumstances urged in appeal by the learned counsel that there has been an aggravation of injury, I admit that document and refer to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance in law. 4. Remand becomes essential only for consideration of the additional evidence filed in Court and no other documents shall be received by the Tribunal. The evidence must again be only to the alleged aggravation of injuries and disability over a period of years on account of accident. The question as to whether the claimant should be considered for enhancement will depend on the assessment regarding the aggravated disability that is alleged to have resulted from the injuries. The award is set aside so far as the determination of the permanent disability is considered but the award already passed is not interfered with. There shall be no reduction of the award already passed and the remand must be understood as merely for an examination of a scope for enhancement in the manner pleaded for on behalf of the appellant. 5. Both the appeals are disposed of as above. 6. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal at Jind on 26.02.2011. ------------0.S.L.0------------