So far as the stand that the accident occurred because the deceased was in an intoxicated state is companycerned, the High Court has rightly numbered that in the absence of any pleading and evidence to substantiate the stand there was numberscope for accepting the plea.
In support of the appeal the stands taken before the High Court were reiterated.
KA 01 F 300 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver while he was at the BMTC bus stand at Bangalore.
Background facts giving rise to the appeal as projected by the claimants for companypensation are as follows On 14.12.1998 at 8.40 p.m. one T.S.C Shekar, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2 and son of claimant No.
MACT by its Award dated 16.2.2002 had awarded a sum of Rs.11,04,032/ as companypensation.
No one appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of service of respondent.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act .
The Award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in short the MACT was questioned in the appeal.
