Judgment :- 1. The Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay of 765 days in filing the appeal against the award dated 14. 2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004. 2. On notice, Mr. Ma.P. Thangavel, counsel appears for respondents 1 and 2/claimants and has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition filed for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 took time to prepare the dates and events, which has lead to the filing of petition for condonation of delay as above. 3. Counsel for the petitioner transport corporation does not dispute the dates and events furnished by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as per chart dated 12. 2008. 4. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposing this petition are as follows:-The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants (i.e.) the mother aged 45 years and the father aged 55 years of the deceased Palanichamy, who died in a road accident which happened on 14. 2004. On the death of the 24 years weaver, the mother and the father filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.6 lakhs. The claim was adjudicated by the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. The Tribunal held that the driver of the petitioner transport corporation was rash and negligent in driving the bus and he was responsible for the accident and the death of the son of the claimants. The liability to compensate the claimants was fixed on the petitioner transport corporation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,600/- as compensation with 7.5% interest and costs. The award was passed on 14. 2006. 5. On 12. 2007, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants filed execution petition E.P.No.71 of 2007 to recover the award amount by way of attachment and sale of appellant transport corporation bus. On 28. 2007 notice to judgment-debtor No.2, the petitioner herein (proposed appellant) was ordered. On 30.10.2007, the judgment-debtor No.2, proposed appellant was called absent and set ex parte before the Executing Court and an order of attachment on or before 12. 2007 was passed. It appears that to raise the above stated order of attachment, E.A.No.173 of 2007 was filed by the judgment-debtor No.2, the petitioner transport corporation and the same was allowed on 12. 2007 and the main E.P.No.71 of 2007 was posted to 21. 2008 for filing counter. On 21. 2007 was passed. It appears that to raise the above stated order of attachment, E.A.No.173 of 2007 was filed by the judgment-debtor No.2, the petitioner transport corporation and the same was allowed on 12. 2007 and the main E.P.No.71 of 2007 was posted to 21. 2008 for filing counter. On 21. 2008 a counter was filed by the judgment-debtor No.2, the petitioner transport corporation. The execution petition was adjourned from time to time. On 16. 2008, it appears that the petitioner transport corporation has filed a copy application in C.A.No.795 of 2008, in respect of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004 dated 14. 2006, nearly six months after the transport corporation filed E.A.No.173 of 2007 to raise the order of attachment. 6. On 16. 2008, the transport corporation filed an appeal before this Court without enclosing the certified copy of award and decree. On 7. 2008 the certified copy of award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2004 was made ready in C.A.No.795 of 2008. Appellant received the copy of award and decree on 7. 2008 and represented the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal along with the certified copy of award and decree, on 19. 2008 (i.e.) after two months from 7. 2008. In the meanwhile, on 26. 2008, the E.P.No.71 of 2007 was allowed and attachment of property was ordered stating that the attachment to be made on or before 37. 2008 giving time for payment of batta within seven days. 7. The claimants were pursuing the execution petition for attachment of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. On 210. 2008 notice was ordered by this court in the present Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2008 filed for condonation of delay. On 111. 2008, respondents 1 and2/claimants entered appearance through their counsel and on request by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, the matter was directed to be posted to 111. 2008 for filing counter by the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants. A counter was filed on 12. 2008 opposing the petition filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 8. In the petition filed to condone the delay of 765 days, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Murugasan, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division-II, 87, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-641043. A counter was filed on 12. 2008 opposing the petition filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 8. In the petition filed to condone the delay of 765 days, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Murugasan, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division-II, 87, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-641043. The relevant portion in the affidavit with regard to plea for condonation of delay is paragraph 3 and it is extracted as such:- "3. Though the award was passed on 19-04-2006 its a pre issued order, the lower court counsel forwarded the copies only in the Second week of June 2008 only, and immediately the papers were handed over to our panel lawyer on 17-06-2008 and the appeal papers were made ready and filed today. However there is a delay caused in filing the above appeal which is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above. Unless the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken on file the petitioner Corporation being a Government undertaking will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. No prejudice would be caused to other side if the delay is condoned." 9. The first claimant, the mother of the deceased filed the counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner transport corporation had knowledge of the proceedings before the court below and yet they did not pursue the matter diligently. The delay is more than two years and no just reason is given in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay. It is only after the initiation of the attachment proceedings, the petitioner transport corporation, to further harass both the claimants filed this petition for condonation of delay, so that the compensation will not reach the claimants, having lost their son in the road accident. 10. According to the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants, the petitioner transport corporation has no intention to respect the award of the claims Tribunal. They could have filed the appeal in time if they are aggrieved. The award amount has not been deposited in spite of knowledge of execution proceedings. The fact that the copy application is filed casually after a very long time, shows the lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the petitioner transport corporations intention is only to avoid payment of compensation on some pretext. The award amount has not been deposited in spite of knowledge of execution proceedings. The fact that the copy application is filed casually after a very long time, shows the lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the petitioner transport corporations intention is only to avoid payment of compensation on some pretext. The method adopted to drag on the proceedings is an abuse of process of court, tarnishing the judicial image of this nation by exploiting the vulnerableness of poor and illiterate litigants like the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. He, therefore, pleaded for strong remedial action by this Court, so that it will be a lesson to other transport corporation who are quasi Government organizations and show scant respect to the misery of the common man. The intention of the petitioner transport corporation is not bona fide and the appeal itself is vexatious. Claimants prayed for dismissal of the petition filed for condonation of delay stating that prejudice has been caused to them by the delayed proceedings of the petitioner transport corporation. The plea of the prejudice stated by the petitioner transport corporation and no prejudice to claimants shows the impropriety of the officials of the petitioner transport corporation against the citizens of the State. Further, it is pointed out that the delay is more than two years, but in the affidavit, in paragraph 3 which relates to the explanation of delay, there is no detail or reason given as to why the delay was caused and by whom it was caused. It is not explained properly. There is no reason stated as to why the matter was kept pending for such a long period of time, when the petitioner transport corporation has all the machinery to pursue the case diligently and promptly. It was pleaded that court should not show indulgence to the Government owned Transport Corporation, who are denying the claimants the lawful compensation granted by the court of law after a full-fledged adjudication on merits. The tactics adopted by the petitioner transport corporation to delay payment of compensation should be severely dealt with by the court and the officers concerned should be made answerable for the delay caused which in turn has caused great prejudice to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. They have lost their son in the road accident which happened on 14. The tactics adopted by the petitioner transport corporation to delay payment of compensation should be severely dealt with by the court and the officers concerned should be made answerable for the delay caused which in turn has caused great prejudice to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. They have lost their son in the road accident which happened on 14. 2004 and it is now four years and six months and the claimants are yet to receive the compensation. The wait for compensation add to the agony consequent to the death of their son. It was pleaded that the petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner transport corporation, the proposed appellant on 12. 2008 submitted on instructions that after the order of Tribunal passed in April 2006, due to change in the Government, the earlier counsel on record was removed and therefore, the copy application could not be filed in time, hence the delay. This reason, however is not stated in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Manager (Legal). 12. Having heard the rival contentions, this Court is not inclined to show the indulgence sought for by the petitioner transport corporation to condone the delay of 765 days in preferring the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for the following reasons:- .(i) The award was passed on 14. 2006. The copy application was filed on 16. 2008. There is, therefore, a delay of 2 years and two months, which delay has not been explained .(ii) Notice was served in the E.P.No.71 of 2007 for the hearing on 30.10.2007. However, on 30.10.2007, the present petitioner, the transport corporation was not present or represented. Hence, the executing court passed an order of attachment. Petitioner transport corporation duly noticed about the E.P. Proceedings, have filed E.A.No.173 of 2007 to raise the order of attachment and the same was allowed on 12. 2007. When they had knowledge of the proceedings of attachment prior to 30.10.2007, it is unfortunate that nearly after seven months, they filed the copy application on 16. 2008 in C.A.No.795 of 2008. The certified copy of award and decree was received on 7. 2008. For no good reason to be stated, the same was forwarded and filed before this court only on 19. 2008 (i.e.) after two months. From the date of copy application (16. 2008), till the order was produced before this Court on 19. 2008 in C.A.No.795 of 2008. The certified copy of award and decree was received on 7. 2008. For no good reason to be stated, the same was forwarded and filed before this court only on 19. 2008 (i.e.) after two months. From the date of copy application (16. 2008), till the order was produced before this Court on 19. 2008, there is a long delay of three months which has not been explained. From the affidavit, it is apparent that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay. (iii) Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by Thiru Murugasan, Assistant Manager (Legal), it is stated that the award passed on 14. 2006 is a pre issue order and the lower court counsel forwarded the copies in the second week of June 2008. What is a pre issue order issued by the court below is not stated and the copy of such order has not been produced before this Court for verification. The counsel for the petitioner transport corporation in spite of sufficient time is not able to produce the so-called pre issue order dated 14. 2006. Therefore, it is clear that the officer, the deponent has sworn to the affidavit without any basis and has given a false reason. What is a pre issue order has not been explained. The counsel for the petitioner transport corporation is at loss to explain under what provision of law the pre issue orders are given. Deponent has not stated the reason for the delay as pointed out in serial Nos.(i) and (ii) above. .(iv) The fact that only after raising of the attachment that the petitioner transport corporation filed the copy application proves their lack of interest in the case. (v) Further, the statement of the counsel for the petitioner transport corporation across the Bar that due to change in Government, earlier counsel on record was removed and therefore, copy application could not be filed in time, though stated orally is not stated by the officer of the petitioner corporation. In any event, if such is the method of working of the corporation, it has to be seriously viewed. The transport corporation has to perform its duties. It is not their concern who runs the Government. The statement that due to change of Government they could not pursue the case, is totally unacceptable and unpardonable. In any event, if such is the method of working of the corporation, it has to be seriously viewed. The transport corporation has to perform its duties. It is not their concern who runs the Government. The statement that due to change of Government they could not pursue the case, is totally unacceptable and unpardonable. .(vi) The court feels it necessary to point out that the mother and the father on the death of their son have been deprived of the compensation only because of the inaction on the part of the officers of the petitioner transport corporation. They have caused great prejudice to both the claimants by delaying the matter without any just and reasonable cause. The court has no other choice except to take a serious view of the attitude of the Government owned Corporation and the officers who have delayed the payment of compensation to the parents of the deceased. The spirit of the son is extinguished by the accident and the financial support is still a dream for the parents. (vii) The delay in this case is abnormal, unexplained and supported by a vague affidavit, which is totally bereft of reasons and details. 13. The transport corporation represented by the Managing Director and the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, are directed to look into the issue seriously so that such incidents do not happen in the future, jeopardizing the rights of the parties. The claimants in this case have lost their son and are poor agriculturists and they are made to chase the petitioner transport corporation from court to court seeking justice and compensation. The petitioner transport corporation cannot delay the payment of compensation, which is due to the claimants on the death of their son on mere technical plea. The plea of administrative difficulties cannot hold good in a case of this kind. The inordinate and unexplained delay and the vague affidavit filed by the legal officer is condemned by this court with the seriousness that it deserves. 14. The Secretary to Government in-charge of Transport Department, and the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation are hereby directed to take serious view of the matter and to deal with the concerned officer who are responsible for this inordinate delay in the proceeding in spite of knowledge of the attachment proceedings. 14. The Secretary to Government in-charge of Transport Department, and the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation are hereby directed to take serious view of the matter and to deal with the concerned officer who are responsible for this inordinate delay in the proceeding in spite of knowledge of the attachment proceedings. Since the delay has not been properly explained and the affidavit has been filed without giving any details, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 765 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner transport corporation for condonation of the delay of 765 days is rejected. 15. The petitioner transport corporation without any just or reasonable cause delayed the payment of compensation. They had knowledge long before. The amount as per the award is yet to be deposited and paid to the claimants. The claimants have suffered due to the death of their son, the breadwinner and the compensation is yet to be given. In view of the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner transport corporation and the protracted litigation faced by the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, for no fault of their, the petitioner transport corporation has to compensate the respondents 1 and 2/claimants by way of cost in addition to the compensation as per the award. Hence, the petition filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-payable to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and also other connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are rejected in the SR stage.