JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. : This Letter Patent Appeal (in short ‘L.P.A.’) has been filed by the appellant challenging to the award passed by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore in M.A.C.T. Case No.148/332 of 1997-96 and the confirming judgment with reduction of the compensation amount delivered on 02.12.2002 by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No.544 of 1999. 2. The vehicle which met with accident, bears Registration No.OR-01-9681, a Tempo Trax, authorized to carry passengers under licence and permit so also the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant. Claimant-respondent is the owner of that Tempo Trax. According to him, on 05.06.1995 while he was travelling as a passenger in the said vehicle, at about 6.30 P.M. on N.H.-5 near Rahanja the vehicle met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and as a result of that he sustained multi¬ple injuries including fracture injuries and remained as an indoor patient in Balasore District Headquarters Hospital from 6th to 14th June, 1995. The Insurance Company contested the claim by advancing the plea of denial only and also stating that the claim case is not maintainable because the claimant himself is the owner of the vehicle. 3. Before the Claims Tribunal evidence was led by both the parties. The claimant-respondent adduced oral evidence and relied on series of documents in proof of the accident, booking of police case for the rash and negligent driving of the driver and the injury certificate, etc. marked Exts.1 to 9. Appellant relied on a duplicate copy of the policy marked Ext.A. On assessment of such evidence, the Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the fact of accident, claimant travelling as a passenger and sustain¬ing injuries in that accident and remained as an indoor patient and undertook treatment are not disputed by the appellant in course of tendering of evidence by the parties. The claim of the appellant that it is not to indemnify when the owner is not liable to pay for the damage sustained by the claimant/owner was consid¬ered and rejected as an illogical contention in the absence of any specific stipulation to that effect in Ext.A. The Claims Tribunal considering the sufferings and the pain, awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till final payment. 4. 4. As it appears from the impugned judgment of the appel¬late Court, two contentions were raised by the appellant. The first one- regarding non-liability of the appellant to pay the compensation in the absence of proving that the claimant suffered the injury, and secondly - the compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side in the absence of examination of the Doctor, who treated the claimant, and absence of proof of the cost of treatment. Learned Single Judge rejected the first contention on the ground that the factual finding in that respect by the Claims Tribunal is supported by evidence. So far as the second contention is concerned, the appellate Court stated that in absence of proof of medical certificate, the amount of compen¬sation should be assessed at Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum on the amount, which had not been deposited (at the time of filing the appeal). 5. Appellant argued that both the Courts below did not consider its contention relating to non-liability to pay the compensation to the claimant on the ground that the claimant is the owner of the vehicle and unless the liability of the owner comes for payment of compensation, the Insurance Company alone cannot be saddled with that liability. In support of that conten¬tion, he relied on the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2004) 8 SCC 553 and Pushpabai and others v. Ramotibai and others, 2002 ACJ 1341 . The claimant-respondent on the other hand argued that, in the above context, when there is no specific plea in the written statement, therefore, the appel¬lant was precluded from raising such a plea in the Miscellaneous Appeal so also in the L.P.A. In support of that contention, he relied on the ratio in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Sahid Khan and others, 1994 (II) OLR - 336. He further argued that liability of the appellant comes under a contract and when the policy does not exclude to indemnify the owner as a passenger of the vehicle, therefore, appellant cannot claim exclusion of the liability. In support of that contention, he relied on the case of Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke and another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532 . 6. In support of that contention, he relied on the case of Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke and another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532 . 6. At the time of hearing of the L.P.A., on 05.10.2005 appellant filed a Xerox copy of its written statement. In that written statement, in the above context, paragraphs 1 and 4 are relevant, which read as hereunder : “1. That, the case is not maintainable as laid and the claimants have no cause of action to file this case against this O.P. u/s. 166 of 1988 M.V. Act. 2. xx xx xx xx 3. xx xx xx xx 4. That, this case is not maintainable to the applicant himself is the owner of the alleged vehicle No.OR-01-9681 Tempo.” On 11.11.2004 appellant has also filed a Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy. 7. On perusal of the aforesaid documents, contention of the parties, citations relied on by them and the impugned judg¬ment of the learned Single Judge, we find that Ground No. (C) in the appeal memo has not been considered at all either to allow or to reject such a contention. It is the duty of the appellate Court to consider all questions raised and decide the same one way or the other. Learned Single Judge, as we find, having failed in doing that, we set aside the judgment dated 02.12.2002 passed in Misc. Appeal No.544 of 1999 and remand the appeal for consid¬eration in accordance with law. The L.P.A. is accordingly allowed. Cost of the proceeding shall abide the result of this appeal. A. K. SAMANTRAY, J. I agree. L.P.A. allowed.