JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H Deb, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurer. 2. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26-02-2016, passed by a learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in TS(MAC) No.189/2013 declining to pass any award to the claimant-petitioner. 3. The findings upon which the Tribunal passed the impugned order are as follows : “26.02.2016 * * * * Notice upon the OPs were served and appeared before the court. On 2.7.2014 issues were also framed but thereafter, several opportunities were allowed to the claimant petitioner to furnish examination in chief or evidence. It is in the record after 02.07.2014 as many as eleven adjournments were allowed but the claimant petitioner does not think it proper to take any step on those dates. Ultimately today is fixed for evidence as a last chance. On careful scrutiny of the record I do not find any scrap of paper in respect of alleged registration of P.S. Case. On perusal of the claim petition, virtually, it is safe to opine here that there is no primary evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the claimant petitioner. As such the incident of accident involving TR-31230(Bus) making responsible for causing severe injury to the claimant petitioner is not proved. Moreover, from the conduct of the claimant petitioner it gives a presumption that the claimant petitioner might have settled the dispute outside the court or he lost his interest to proceed further with the case. Thus this Tribunal constrained to hold that the claimant petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation in this case. Accordingly, present case is thus liable to be disposed of with Nil Award.” 4. An attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to take on the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal, if it was a case of non-prosecution, ought to have dismissed the claim petition and should not have passed the nil awards, which is illegal. The learned counsel admits that there were some inaction on the part of claimant-appellant in not prosecuting the case in the right earnestness, but he should not be deprived of the opportunity to get compensation just for that and that he should rather have been granted more opportunity to adduce evidence. 5. The learned counsel admits that there were some inaction on the part of claimant-appellant in not prosecuting the case in the right earnestness, but he should not be deprived of the opportunity to get compensation just for that and that he should rather have been granted more opportunity to adduce evidence. 5. I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal, but do not find any material from which the appeal can be entertained or the appeal can be allowed by remitting it to the Tribunal. Eleven adjournments were prayed and were granted by the Tribunal to enable the appellant to prosecute her case. The Tribunal was liberal enough to adjourn the hearing of the case time and again. Thus, on the facts so found, I am in complete agreement with the Tribunal in passing nil award. Resultantly, the appeal has no merit which is, accordingly, dismissed. Transmit the LCRs forthwith.