JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.06.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 224 of 2010 whereunder the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,75,958/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight) only for the injury suffered by the claimant- respondent No. 1 due to motor vehicle accident. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Kishore Bhattacharji for the appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel, Mr. I Chakraborty for the respondent No. 1, i.e. the claimant- respondent. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the owners of the offending vehicles even after service of notice. 3. It is candidly submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji that the claimant- respondent suffered 45% disability because of the accident as claimed by him. The disability certificate produced, but no doctor was examined while the evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the disability certificate as permanent disability to the extent of 45% awarded compensation taking into account the loss of income for the rest of life of the claimant-respondent. Mr. Bhattacharji submitted that the calculation of the compensation was absolutely wrong specially in the case where the doctor was not examined. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, i.e. the claimant-respondent submitted that the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. 5. It is admitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji for the appellant-Insurance Company that no objection was filed by the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the MV Act, 1988. In such an admitted situation, while the Insurance Company did not take the plea of collusion it cannot go beyond the grounds prescribed in Section 149 of the MV Act. 6. The claimant-petitioner examined himself as witness and produced the certificate of disability. The Tribunal taken into account the evidence adduced before it and calculated compensation considering the disability certificate as the disability for the rest of the life. 7. 6. The claimant-petitioner examined himself as witness and produced the certificate of disability. The Tribunal taken into account the evidence adduced before it and calculated compensation considering the disability certificate as the disability for the rest of the life. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-Insurance Company in the absence of taking a plea under Section 170 of the MV Act cannot now say that simply because the Medical Officer was not examined to prove the extent of disability, the calculation of compensation was wrong and therefore, the appellate court is to interfere in the award. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this judgment.