Navita Singh, J.:- 1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 6.6.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal for short), Ambala, in a petition filed by the appellants, vide which they claimed compensation for the death of Kuldeep Rai. Appellants No. 1 and 2 are the widow and daughter, respectively, of the deceased. The petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. The case of the appellants was that Kuldeep Rai had gone to Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt to enquire about the health of his mother-in-law on 27.10.2007 and on his way back to Ambala City on motor-cycle bearing No. HR-01W-0255, he met with an accident at about 10.30/10.45 p.m. near Hari Palace, Ambala City on G.T. Road. The accident occurred as a bull had suddenly appeared on the road and the deceased, in an effort to save the animal, applied brake, but lost balance. He fell down and received multiple injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City by the National Highway Police, from where he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh. He succumbed to his injuries on the way. His age, at the relevant time, was stated to be 47 years and income between ` 3000-3200/- per month. 2. Respondent No. 1, who was the owner of the motor-cycle, was heard ex parte, while respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company of the vehicle, contested the claim. The defence taken, inter alia, was that there was collusion between the appellants and respondent No. 1 and that no accident, as alleged, had taken place. It was pleaded that the deceased was driving the motor-cycle without the relevant papers and driving licence. Only D.D.R. was registered whereas FIR should have been made. The usual pleading was there that the vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy. The owner of the motor-cycle was the brother of the deceased, who was therefore interested in the matter and sided with the appellants. 3. The following issues were settled by the Tribunal:-- 1. Whether the accident causing the death of Kuldeep Rai alias Kuldeep Kumar occurred due to involvement of motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-01M-0255 (number of the motor-cycle is given as HR-01W-0255 in the petition) being driven by Kuldeep Rai alias Kuldeep Kumar deceased himself? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident causing the death of Kuldeep Rai alias Kuldeep Kumar occurred due to involvement of motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-01M-0255 (number of the motor-cycle is given as HR-01W-0255 in the petition) being driven by Kuldeep Rai alias Kuldeep Kumar deceased himself? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 can avoid its liability on the ground mentioned in the written statement? OPR2 4. Relief. 4. The Tribunal held that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident was caused due to use of motor-cycle in question and as such the claim was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that use of the motor-cycle was proved and nothing further was required to be shown by the appellants regarding the accident. No other vehicle was involved and there was nothing to prove to the contrary that the deceased had been negligently driving the vehicle and had been injured on account of his own fault. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no witness of the accident and since as per the ruqa Ex. PB, victim was found lying on the road side and the D.D.R. has been lodged after four days, the claim was not genuine. The Tribunal also wrongly relied on the fact that nothing was got recorded by the official of the National Highway Authority, who took the injured to the hospital as to how the deceased came to suffer the injuries. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, argued that no fault could be found with the reasoning given by the Tribunal because there is evidence only by way of the statement of the widow Harnam Kaur, P.W.2, who stated that her husband had died in the manner pleaded. However, she was not an eye witness. The other statement is of Dr. Alaknanda, P.W.1, who medicolegally examined the deceased. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also pointed out that the doctor categorically admitted that it was written in the medicolegal report Ex. PA that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. It was contented that the accident occurred due to the drunken condition of the deceased and not in the manner pleaded by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also pointed out that the doctor categorically admitted that it was written in the medicolegal report Ex. PA that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. It was contented that the accident occurred due to the drunken condition of the deceased and not in the manner pleaded by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of Harnam Kaur, P.W.2, where in her cross examination, a suggestion was put to her that the accident had taken place due to the fault of her husband as he had taken liquor. The suggestion was denied by her. The learned counsel contended that from this suggestion put to the witness, it is clear that respondent No. 2 admitted the factum of the accident. He stated that since the accident was admitted and involvement of the motor-cycle in question is otherwise not denied, number of which is also mentioned in the D.D.R., it is proved on record that Kuldeep Rai died on account of use of the motor-cycle HR-01W-0255. In order to show as to what should be the compensation to be given to the appellants, the learned counsel relied upon the authority reported as Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, : 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 443 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 1 : 2014 ACJ 526. The said case, however, need not be referred as the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons being recorded below. 8. It can never be the intention of the legislator to award compensation for the death of drunken driver because in such case, people will not be dissuaded from driving under the influence of liquor. It is commonly seen that persons addicted to liquor do not bother about their own life and the life of others while driving and also do not bother for the law by mixing drinking and driving. The accident was not witnessed by anyone and as rightly held by the Tribunal, nothing is mentioned in the ruqa regarding any information having been given by the official of the National Highway Authority of India about the manner in which accident occurred. The D.D.R. was lodged by the widow four days after the accident. The deceased was found lying on the side of the road. The D.D.R. was lodged by the widow four days after the accident. The deceased was found lying on the side of the road. It is written in the D.D.R. lodged by Harnam Kaur that one boy, who was standing at the spot, had taken out a diary from the pocket of her husband and had informed them about the occurrence. The same boy had told that the accident had taken place as a stray bull had hit the motor-cycle suddenly. It was, however, pleaded in the petition that the accident had taken place when the deceased applied brake to stop the motor-cycle as the bull had suddenly appeared on the road. Nothing is mentioned that the bull had hit the vehicle. It was also stated in the D.D.R. that Harnam Kaur had gone to the spot along with her relatives and made inquiries and people, who were present at the relevant time, had told her how the accident had occurred. It is absolutely unbelievable that much after the accident, she went to the spot, she found people who were present there at the time of accident and also got the details. Neither that boy was named who informed them, nor any of the other persons who met her, was named. None of those persons was brought in the witness box. When Harnam Kaur appeared as a witness, she was totally silent about all the aspects given in the D.D.R. and she did not utter a word that any boy had informed about the accident or that she had made inquiries later on from there. She simply stated that her husband had met with an accident and died on account of the same. Even the time of accident given by her is totally different because it is pleaded in the petition that it took place about 10.30/10.45 p.m. whereas in her statement in the court, she mentioned the time as 9.30/9.45 p.m. In the D.D.R., however, the time of accident was not mentioned, but it was written that in the evening when her husband was returning from Mahesh Nagar, he met with an accident. 'Evening' cannot be after 10.30 p.m. in any case. It appears that the entire story set up by the appellants is a concoction and for that reason, information to the police was given four days after the alleged accident. 'Evening' cannot be after 10.30 p.m. in any case. It appears that the entire story set up by the appellants is a concoction and for that reason, information to the police was given four days after the alleged accident. The accident, if any, took place on account of the fact that deceased was drunk at the relevant time and he died on account of his own fault. No fault liability, thus, does not come into play and if any person dies in an accident which was caused by his own fault, the Insurance Company or the owner, as the case may, cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 9. The Tribunal arrived at the right conclusion and the same does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. ………………………………