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 tribunal, in MAC Case no.44.of 1976. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The respondent (Smti Bichitribala* Das) sustained injuries in a motor accident and claimed compensation, if a judgment dated 21.12.82, the Tribunal found that the appellant's vehicle (registration number 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) No. 41 of 1983) before this Court. The respondent(Smti Bichitribala Das) neither preferred appeal nor cross-objection. By judgment dated 13.6.86, this Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the award and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for re-determining the amount of compensation in accordance with the principles governing the assessment for compensation. After remand, the Tribunal re-assessed and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/- Hence, the appellant again brought this appeal. 3. Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the manner of re-assessment was wrong and, therefore, the new award, which was given' after the remand, is liable to be set aside. Mr.TC Sarma, teamed 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 CPC. It is important to note that the respondent (Smti 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 fated 21.12.82 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal Ibr re-determination 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 toe 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-objection in the appeal of the appellant. It was on the appeal of the appellait that this Court remanded the case to the' Tribunal. 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-objection in the appeal of the appellant. It was on the appeal of the appellait that this Court remanded the case to the' Tribunal. Therefore, the intention of the remand was that the Tribunals should see whether the amount awarded could be reduced from Rs. 50.000/-. So, if the Tribunal cannot reduce the amount below to 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 to 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,. h; the date of award after remand. No costs.