JUDGMENT & ORDER : In this appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, in his judgment dated 25-2-2011 of T.S. (MAC) No. 93 of 2007. The appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, whereas appellant No.2 and the appellant No.3 are the minor son and mother of the deceased respectively. 2. On 4-8-2003, the late Bjoy Majumdar (now deceased) was hit by the Commander Jeep bearing registration number TR012986 coming from Kamalpur side, and was brought to Kamalpur Hospital and thence to GB Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted for better treatment. According to the appellants, he was also taken to Ruby General Hospital, Kolkata on 10-8-2003 and stayed there till 22-8-2003, but was admitted again at GB Hospital and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 18-1-2006. He was said to be 30 years old at the time of the accident and was a businessman dealing with spare parts of scooter and motor cycle and was also a skilled mechanic earning Rs.8,000/per month. It was claimed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Commander Jeep by its driver. The appellants filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.27,48,000/. 3. The claim petition was contested by the insurer respondent by filing its written statements where it disputed that the deceased died of vehicular accident and denied any liability to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “(i) Did Bijoy Majumdar died in a road accident which took place on 4-8-2003 at 1900 hours at South Manik Bhandar on Kamalpur-Ambassa road involving the vehicle bearing registration No.TR012986 (Commander Jeep) due to its rash and negligent driving? (ii) Are the claimants entitled to get any compensation under the provision of MV Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same?” 5. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal declined to pass any award as it found the appellants not entitled to any compensation. The following are the findings of the Tribunal: “6. Issue No.(i) : On perusal of the case record, it appears that after framing of issues on 07-11-2009, the case was fixed on 29-1-2010 for adducing evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal declined to pass any award as it found the appellants not entitled to any compensation. The following are the findings of the Tribunal: “6. Issue No.(i) : On perusal of the case record, it appears that after framing of issues on 07-11-2009, the case was fixed on 29-1-2010 for adducing evidence. Thereafter, on several occasions, i.e. on 29-1-2010, 28-4-2010, 4-6-2010, 21-7-2010, 1-9-2010 and 23-11-2010, the petitioners prayed for time to adduce evidence but they did not do so. In (sic) the last occasion, i.e. on 14-2-2001, the petitioners did not take any step. Though on 21-7-2010, the petitioner No.1 filed her affidavit-in-chief, but she did not appear to face cross-examination by the opposite party No.2 and consequently the alleged facts of sustaining injury is (held?) to be not proved. So, Issue No.(i) is decided in the negative. 7. Issue No.(ii): In view of the decision of Issue No.(i), it is held that the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation in this case. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the negative.” 6. Mr. A. Nandi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurer and Mr. N. Majumdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, have been heard at some length. On perusing the above observations of the Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the appellants, despite granting of time on several occasions, failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim. The appellant No.1 did not even bother to appear before the Tribunal for cross-examination by the opposite side with the result that her evidence in the affidavit-in-chief could not be considered for awarding the compensation. In my opinion, the findings of the Tribunal do not call for my interference. Interestingly, this appeal was filed some two years after the impugned judgment. Again, some three years later, the appellants belatedly filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for adducing additional evidence. This Court by the judgment and order dated 18-11-2017 rejected the application on the ground that no substantial cause was made out for allowing adduction of additional evidence. Now, if the appellants are denied permission for adducing additional evidence, the very basis of challenging the impugned order is wiped out; the question of improving the case of the appellants does not arise. Now, if the appellants are denied permission for adducing additional evidence, the very basis of challenging the impugned order is wiped out; the question of improving the case of the appellants does not arise. Resultantly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs. Transmit the lower court records forthwith.