Point of Law: It is settled law that police charge can be relied on to find negligence against the driver of a motor vehicle, unless substantive evidence to disbelieve police charge if not adduced.

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. 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 i