JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R G Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A Nandi, the learned counsel for the insurance company. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27-1-2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.3), West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit(MAC) No.410 of 2009 awarding a sum of Rs.3,47,641/together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. He contends that the amount so awarded is too low and disproportionate. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24-5-2009 at about 01-30 PM the appellant was proceeding towards Charilam by driving his motorbike bearing registration No.TR-01-F-8104, but when he reached Jangalia, Bishalgarh near Biswapriya Club, one Cruiser Jeep bearing registration No.TR-01-C-2544 coming from the opposite direction dashed against his motorbike which resulted in causing grievous injury on his person. He was brought to Bishalgarh Hospital and then transferred to G. B. P Hospital, Agartala for better treatment and was admitted there as indoor patient from 24-5-2009 to 26-5-2009. He was subsequently referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata and accordingly, he was admitted therein on 27-5-2009. An operation was done upon him on 30-5-2009 and was given treatment in that centre till 10-6-2009. He was again admitted to Eskag Sanjiwani Nazrul Islam Centre For Trauma & Orthopedics on 21-6-2009 and was treated therein till 28-6-2009. On 31-7-2009 he returned to Agartala by air. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Cruiser Jeep by its driver. The appellant is an Assistant Teacher of Govt. School and was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. 4. Both the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company contested the claim petition by denying the claims of the appellant. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed : “1. Whether the claimant sustained any injury in a road traffic accident occurred on 24-5-2009 at about 01-30 PM at Jangalia of Bishalgarh in front of Biswapriya Club on Agartala – Sabroom road under Bishalgarh P.S. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-C-2544(Cruiser Jeep). 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation under the provision of M.V. Act, 1988. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation under the provision of M.V. Act, 1988. If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same.” 5. In the course of trial, the appellant examined as PW.1 and submitted certified copies of the documents including FIR, discharge certificate etc. He also submitted prescriptions, Cash memos, air and train tickets etc. as exhibit-2 series. The respondent No.1 also exhibited photocopies of registration certificate, tax token, insurance policy, route permit, fitness certificate of the vehicle and driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. 6. Though the appellant claimed that he sustained permanent disablement due to the accident, he is unable to produce any disablement certificate in the trial. At the belated stage i.e. in the year 2017 i.e. some seven years later, he filed an application before this Court for adducing additional documents including disablement certificate but the same was rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate his allegation that he suffered permanent disablement, it is difficult to accept the case of the appellant that he is a permanently disabled person. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,47,641/-, which according to me, is appropriate and proportionate on the evidence brought on record. The appellant is a Govt. employee. The question of awarding compensation for loss of earning amounting to Rs.1,58,000/-does not arise as he was all along drawing his salary during the period of his treatment. In spite of rejection of the application of the appellant for adducing the additional evidence, i.e. the other air tickets, train tickets etc., a desperate attempt is made by Mr. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the appellant, to convince this court by submitting that if those documents are taken into account, the appellant would deserve considerable enhancement of the amount of compensation. However, as the prayer for adducing additional evidence has been rejected, the question of taking those evidence by this Court cannot and does not arise. Inasmuch as the appellant is unable to substantiate his case for enhancement of compensation, the interference of this Court in the impugned judgment is not called for. 7. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Transmit the LC record.