ORDER
J. Sangma, J.
1. The appellant, who is owner of the vehicle, has preferred this appeal against the award dated 7-10-86 passed by Sri A, Sarkar, the Tribuftal, in M.A.C. Case No. 44/76.
2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The respondent (Smt. Bichitribala Das) sustained injuries in a motor accident and claimed compensation. By a judgment dated 21-12-82, the Tribunal found that the appellant’s vehicle (Registration No. of the vehicle not shown in Tribunal’s judgment and memo of appeal) was at fault for the accident and, accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. Against that award, the appellant preferred an appeal (MA(F)41/83) before this Court. The respondent (Smt. Bichitribala Das) neither preferred appeal nor cross-objection. By judg-ment dated 18-6-86, this Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the award and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for redetermining the amount of compensation in accordance with the principles governing the assessment for compensation. After remand, the Tribunal reassessed’ and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/-. Hence, the appellant again brought this appeal.
3. Mr. P.C. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the manner of reassessment was wrong and, therefore, the new award, which was given after the remand, is liable to be set aside. Mr. T.C. Sarraa, learned counsel for the respondent, is absent; so, he could not be heard.
4. The remand order in the instant case falls under Order 41, Rule 23A, C.P.C. It is important to note that the respondent (Smt. Bichitribala Das) did not file appeal against the previous award dated 21-12-82. The appellant alone preferred the said appeal against that award and in that appeal, the respondent neither filed a cross-objection, The appeal of the appellant was allowed by this Court and the amount of compensation given in the judgment dated 21-12-82 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal for redetermination of the quantum of compensation by applying the principles governing the assessment.
5. On remand, the lower Court must strictly abide by the direction of the appellate Court. In the instant case, the appellant alone preferred appeal against the award dated 21-12-82. The respondent did not prefer an appeal; and neither she had filed cross-ob-jection in the appeal of the appellant. It was on the appeal of the appellant that this Court remanded the case to the Tribunal. Therefore the intention of the remand was that the. Tribunal should see whether the amount awarded could be reduced from Rs. 50,000/-. So, if the Tribunal cannot reduce the amount below Rs. 50,000/-, it could have given only the amount which it had given in the previous award namely, Rs. 50,000/-. There was no scope for the Tribunal to enhance the amount after the remand. In enhancing the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction.
6. I, therefore, find that there is merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; and the award dated 7-10-86, after remand, is set aside and the same is reduced to the original amount of Rs. 50,000/’. The record shows that the appellant has so far paid only Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, it is directed that the appellant shall pay balance amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) together with interest @ 6% per annum from 7-10-86, i.e., the date of award after remand. No costs.