JUDGMENT : The original petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No.1283/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein and she impugns award dated 15.10.2002 in the above case. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein also. 2. Three vital questions arise in the matter are; i) whether a Tribunal or a civil court can dismiss a suit or a petition without answering all the issues raised? ii) what is intended by the mandate of Order XIV rule 2 CPC in so far as an appellate court is concerned? and; iii) can an appellate court decide an issue which was not decided by the trial court or the Tribunal and finally determine the suit or petition? 3. Heard both sides. 4. Brief facts of the case: The appellant would allege that she sustained injuries in consequence of an accident on 04.03.2002 at about 5:00 p.m, while she was walking along the road and when she was hit down by an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-11J-3036, driven by the 2nd respondent, the driver of the autorickshaw. 5. The 3rd respondent filed written statement and resisted the claim. While admitting policy, driving licence to the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-11J-3036 was disputed and also it was alleged that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent as alleged by the appellant. 6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter. Exts.A1 to A3 series marked on the part of the appellant. No evidence let in by the respondents. 7. Before this Court, appellant filed I.A. No.1/2022 to receive additional documents, which is allowed and those two documents marked as Exts.A4 and A5 respectively. 8. While answering the issue as to whether the accident was the contribution of the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal answered the same against the appellant since no proper evidence adduced to substantiate the accident as well as negligence as contended. To be precise, no substantive independent evidence or no police charge produced before the Tribunal to prove the accident and negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent. It is the settled law that a petitioner in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the principle of 'fault liability' should prove the motor accident and also to prove that the accident involves negligence on the part of the driver or rider as the case may be. It is the settled law that a petitioner in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the principle of 'fault liability' should prove the motor accident and also to prove that the accident involves negligence on the part of the driver or rider as the case may be. Similarly the petitioner shall prove that he sustained injuries in the accident warranting grant of compensation. Since the appellant failed to prove the first ingredient in this case, the Tribunal dismissed the petition without deciding the second aspect. That is to say, the Tribunal not decided the second issue framed in the matter viz., 'whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum?' 9. The pertinent questions are, i) whether a Tribunal or a civil court can dismiss the petition or a suit without answering all the issues raised? ii) what is intended by the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC in so far as an appellate court is concerned? 10. Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Order XIV Rule 1(4) deals with two kind of issues, a) issues of fact and b)issues of law. As per order XIV Rule 1(5) at the first hearing of the suit the court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case to depend. 11. After framing proper issues, on evidence, Order XIV Rule 2 provides that the court to pronounce judgment on all issues. It has been provided that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule 2, pronounce judgment on all issues. 12. 11. After framing proper issues, on evidence, Order XIV Rule 2 provides that the court to pronounce judgment on all issues. It has been provided that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule 2, pronounce judgment on all issues. 12. It is the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 sub rule 2 that, where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a)the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. In cases where Order XIV rule 2 sub rule 2 is not applicable, it is the bounden duty of the court to decide all issues framed based on the evidence adduced. Therefore, a court or a Tribunal shall not dismiss a suit or a petition without answering all the issues based on evidence. 13. If it is found that the petitioner failed to prove the accident and negligence then also the Tribunal should have to answer the second issue regarding the entitlement of compensation and the quantum thereof. Therefore the Tribunal went wrong in not deciding the second issue in the original petition. 14. Now comes the significance of the second question. Why Order XIV Rule 2 makes decision on all issues mandatory? In this scenario, it is relevant to note that when an appeal is filed, the said appeal is nothing but continuation of the proceedings before the trial court and in the event the appellate court reverses the negative finding as to maintainability in favour of the appellant or the negative finding regarding negligence on the part of the driver or rider in a claim under Section 166 of MV Act, the appellate court is bestowed with a duty to re-appreciate the evidence to concur the finding or to modify or review the same. In such contingency, only when the trial court answers all the issues, the appellate court could re-appreciate the evidence to decide the correctness of the said findings and ultimately to give a quietus to the litigation. In such contingency, only when the trial court answers all the issues, the appellate court could re-appreciate the evidence to decide the correctness of the said findings and ultimately to give a quietus to the litigation. Otherwise, the appellate court will be forced to remand the matter for deciding the other issues after setting aside the issue found against the appellant after setting aside the same and answering the same also. 15. Coming to the facts of this case, in so far as the first question regarding negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent is concerned, Ext.A4 police charge now produced before this Court would substantiate that the accident was the contribution of the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the autorickshaw at the time of accident. It is the settled law that police charge can be relied on to find negligence against the driver of a motor vehicle, unless substantive evidence to disbelieve the police charge if not adduced. Therefore, I set aside the decision of the Tribunal and it is held that the accident in the present case is the contribution of negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. 16. It is pertinent to note that since the Tribunal not decided the entitlement of compensation and the quantum thereof, the normal practice is to remand the matter before the Tribunal for deciding the said issue. Indubitably, appeal is the continuation of the proceedings before the trial court and it is the duty of the appellate court, to re- appreciate the evidence to confirm the finding of the court of the first instance or the Tribunal, or to vary or modify or to set aside the same, based on the evidence available on re-appreciation. But Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC provides that the appellate court may finally determine the suit where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC is extracted as under: where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds. In the case on hand, evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce judgment and this Court can finally determine the original petition. Thus the law is clear on the point that an appellate court can very well decide an issue which was not decided by the trial court or the Tribunal so as to finally determine the suit or the petition. 17. In this case, the accident was on 04.03.2002. Petition lodged before the Tribunal during 2002 itself. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on 15.10.2007 after deciding only one issue. Appeal filed therefrom during 2009. Now, it is 2022. To be more explicit, the matter has been pending for the last 20 years. In such cases, the power of the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC shall be exercised to culminate the proceedings by answering the issues failed to be answered by the Tribunal and to determine the original petition finally. Therefore, by exercising the power of the appellate court, I am inclined to decide the entitlement of compensation and the quantum thereof in this appeal itself, giving paramount consideration to protect the interest of justice in the context of factual events discussed. 18. In this matter, as per Ext.A1, the reference card issued from Medical College hospital, Kozhikode, the appellant was admitted on 04.03.2002, soon after the accident and was discharged on 17.03.2022. Isolated displaced comminuted fracture middle 1/3rd of right radius was the diagnosis and the treatment was open reduction and internal fixation and DCP application. Ext.A2 also shows the course underwent by the appellant in the hospital supported by clinical biochemistry investigations. Ext.A4 marked herein is the copy of discharge summary of police cases and the same also would justify the injuries and treatment to be borne out from Exts.A1 to A3. 19. No disability certificate produced by the appellant before the Tribunal or before this Court and, therefore, disability cannot be fixed. 20. Even though the learned counsel for the insurer challenged liability on the ground that the absence of driving licence to the 2nd respondent, the driver of the Autorickshaw, the police charge does not suggest that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. 20. Even though the learned counsel for the insurer challenged liability on the ground that the absence of driving licence to the 2nd respondent, the driver of the Autorickshaw, the police charge does not suggest that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. Despite that, when the matter was before the Tribunal, the insurer not filed any petition directing the owner or the driver to produce the driving licence to prove absence of driving licence otherwise. In view of the matter, this challenge cannot be found in favour of the insurer. 21. In the petition, the appellant claimed Rs.4,500/-as income. Since no evidence adduced, taking note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2002, Rs.3,500/-is fixed as the monthly income of the appellant. Having considered the comminuted fracture and the treatment thereof, I am inclined to grant 'loss of earnings' at Rs.3,500/-for 4 months i.e., Rs.14,000/-. Under the head 'transportation expenses', Rs.1,000/-is granted. Considering 13 days of inpatient treatment, Rs.1,300/-is granted under the head 'bystander expense' at the rate of Rs.100/-per day. Towards, 'pain and sufferings', Rs.18,000/-is granted considering the fracture and treatment. Towards, 'loss of amenities', Rs.12,000/-and towards 'extra nourishment', Rs.3,000/- is granted. 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.49,300/-(Rupees Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Only) as compensation along with interest 7.5% per annum, to be realised from the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding interest for the period of 481 days in filing this appeal as ordered in the order dated 15.12.2021 in C.M.Application No.1/2009 (3551/2009). Since the appellant not paid court fee to the tune of Rs.1,372.50/- before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.1,372.50/-in the name of M.A.C.T, Kozhikode towards court fee. The Insurance Company is further directed to deposit the balance amount in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant is entitled to release the same.