ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an Order dated 16-02-2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, whereby in an appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court has set aside the Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') in favour of the appellant and has remanded the case to determine whether or not the appellant, at the time of accident, was wearing a helmet/protective head-gear. 3. The appellant was riding on a two-wheeler when he suffered an accident on 12-2-2012 causing multiple injuries to him. 4. The appellant filed a claim petition under the Act for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- which was accepted by the Tribunal in part and a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- was awarded him. 5. The appellant was felt dissatisfied with the award amount and consequently filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Act before the High Court praying to modify the award of the IIIrd Additional Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Kalaburagi dated 14-09-2016 and to award him the enhanced compensation. 6. Notably, neither the owner of the lorry involved in the accident (Respondent No.3) nor the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) filed appeals before the High Court. 7. The High Court, instead of considering the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation, ventured into the question of whether the appellant was wearing helmet at the time of accident, in terms of Section 129 of the Act. 8. Since no such issue was raised before the Tribunal and there was no finding on this point, the High Court vide impugned Judgment set aside the Tribunal award and remanded the case to the Tribunal for determining the question regarding whether the Appellant was wearing helmet or some form of protective headgear, as required under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record. 10. It appears to us that the approach of the High Court is completely erroneous. In the absence of any appeal by the Insurance Company or owner of the delinquent vehicle (the Lorry), the High Court ought not to have entertained any contention against the appellant in an appeal preferred by him. 10. It appears to us that the approach of the High Court is completely erroneous. In the absence of any appeal by the Insurance Company or owner of the delinquent vehicle (the Lorry), the High Court ought not to have entertained any contention against the appellant in an appeal preferred by him. The High Court should have confined itself to the determination of whether or not the appellant was entitled to seek enhanced compensation. 11. As the main prayer by the appellant was not touched upon by the High Court at all, we are inclined to accept this Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment dated 16-2-2018 and remand the case to the High Court to decide the appellant's appeal afresh on merits. 12. It goes without saying that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be released to the appellant forthwith, if not paid yet, along with the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The needful shall be done within four weeks. 13. It is, however, made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the High Court shall decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law.