JUDGMENT S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. Claimant in MVC No. 4495 of 2009 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru, has come up in this appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.9.2010 in dismissing the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of her son in an unfortunate road traffic accident dated 25.12.2008. This appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 628 days. Hence, I.A. No. 1 of 2013 is filed seeking condonation of said delay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant on I.A. No. 1 of 2013 and perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same it is seen that the reason assigned for delay is that appellant was not conversant with the facts of the case; she has filed aforesaid claim proceedings seeking compensation for the death of her son; she went to her native place after the death of her son, therefore, she could not meet her counsel and instruct him to file appeal, hence the delay is due to aforesaid bona-fide reasons. Except stating as above, the appellant has not assigned single acceptable reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the delay being not properly explained, the application filed seeking condonation of delay is required to be dismissed. However, before dismissing the application the judgment impugned is also looked into. 3. On going through the judgment impugned it is seen that the case of appellant before tribunal is that on 25.12.2008 her son by name Harsha was riding Honda Activa motor cycle bearing registration No. KA50/H.4759 on B.B. Road. Near Yelahanaka, Bengaluru, it is stated that he lost control over the vehicle due to unknown reason/act of god and hit the roadside railings. Due to said impact, Harsha fell down, sustained multiple severe injuries and succumbed to the same on the way to hospital. Hence, claim petition was filed by appellant herein seeking compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act on the ground that death of her son having been established in a road traffic accident, it is not incumbent upon her to establish any negligence on the part of anybody. Therefore, compensation will have to be awarded as contemplated under Section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by invoking the provisions of Section 163A. 4. Therefore, compensation will have to be awarded as contemplated under Section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by invoking the provisions of Section 163A. 4. In the said proceedings based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record the tribunal felt that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of deceased Harsha himself. In that view of the matter, question of considering the prayer of his mother for grant of compensation does not arise. Accordingly, dismissed her claim petition. One more reason assigned by the tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is that in the proceedings initiated by the police, complaint was registered against the deceased as accused and charge sheet was also filed against him. The claimant/appellant being aggrieved by the finding of tribunal in dismissing the claim petition has come up in this appeal seeking to set aside the aforesaid judgment and award and pray this Court to direct the insurer and owner of said vehicle to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Incidentally, the owner of motor cycle, who is second respondent in the claim proceedings is none other than the husband of claimant and insurer of motor cycle which is belonging to the family is first respondent. It is seen that in the proceedings before tribunal the insurance company has rightly opposed the claim petition in contending that tort feasor cannot be awarded compensation. 5. The laudable intention of either Section 140(4) or Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is to ensure that in a case of unfortunate incident of accident, if the victim is not able to establish any fault either on the part of owner of vehicle or insurer, a reasonable compensation is awarded to the dependents in case of death or to the victim in case of injury. In any event, it was neither the intention of legislators nor that of the Courts to enrich a tort feasor by awarding compensation to him or for his family members in case of his death due to his own mistake. In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant tried to rely on the following two judgments in support of her case in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha and Others, AIR 2012 SC 797 . In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant tried to rely on the following two judgments in support of her case in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha and Others, AIR 2012 SC 797 . An unreported judgment of Apex Court in the matter of A. Sridhar vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 7823 of 2011 (arising out of SIP (C) No. 6617 of 2011). (a) Coming to first of the judgments i.e. Sinitha's case, it is seen that in the said proceedings claim petition was filed for the death of pillion rider, who died in a motor cycle accident where the accident has taken place while the rider of motor cycle in the process of giving way to the oncoming bus moved to the left side of road and hit a big laterite stone lying on the road. Therefore, under said facts and circumstances, the claim of parents of deceased pillion rider was considered for awarding compensation. (b) Similarly, in the unreported judgment in Sridhar's case the accident has taken place due to oil spill on the road where negligence could not be attributed to any of the riders of vehicle. In that view of the matter, compensation was awarded to claimant under Section 166 of the MV Act. 6. Now coming to the instant case, the facts given are totally different. Here is an youngster, who was riding the motor cycle at the relevant point of time i.e. at the early hours on 25.12.2008, where he was riding the motor cycle belonging to his father registered in his name and insured with first respondent. He drove the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, in such a way that it would cause danger to the other users of road and went and dashed against the grill on the side of road, fortunate that he did not hit somebody and caused bodily injury or damage to property of third parties. It is the solace in entire proceedings that he hurt himself and died, for which this Court would consider that he cannot be decorated either with compensation or with any other kind of laurels for the tortuous act committed by him, which has taken his own life. It is the solace in entire proceedings that he hurt himself and died, for which this Court would consider that he cannot be decorated either with compensation or with any other kind of laurels for the tortuous act committed by him, which has taken his own life. In that view of the matter, the finding of tribunal in rejecting the claim petition filed by claimant under Section 163A of the MV Act being just and proper, though the application filed seeking condonation of delay is allowed, no grounds are made out for admission of this appeal. Accordingly, the application filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.