Judgment :- 1. The Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay of 1245 days in filing the above appeal against the award dated 27. 2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.242 of 2003. 2. On notice, Mr. P. Udhayashankar, counsel appears for the first respondent/claimant and filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition filed for condonation of delay. Even though notice was served on the fourth respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent. Respondents 2, 3 and 5 were given up as they were ex parte before the Court below. 3. The petition for condonation of delay was vehemently opposed by the first respondent/claimant stating that the reason given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is bereft of reason. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the first respondent/claimant, paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by Thiru M. Murugasan, working as the Special Grade Assistant Manager (Legal) in the petitioner transport corporation is as follows:- "3. Though the award was passed on 29-07-2004, the copy application is filed on 27-02-2008 and the certified copies were made ready on 11-03-2008, the lower court counsel forwarded the copies only in the Third week of March 2008 only, and immediately the paper were handed over to our panel lawyer on 24-03-2008 and the appeal papers were made ready and filed today. However, there is a 1245 days delay caused in filing the above appeal which is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above and the Deposit Receipt also filed. Unless the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken on the file the petitioner Corporation being a Government undertaking corporation will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. No prejudice would be caused to other side if the delay is condoned." 4. Today in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in C.M.A.SR.No.48329 of 2008 filed by the petitioner corporation in another case of this kind, this Court passed a detailed order dismissing the petition filed for condonation of delay. In that case also, the affidavit was filed by the very same officer. Surprisingly the petition and affidavit filed for condonation of delay in both cases is stereo type and bereft of details. For better understanding, paragraph 3 of the said affidavit filed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in C.M.A.SR.No.48329 of 2008, the other case, is extracted hereunder:- "3. In that case also, the affidavit was filed by the very same officer. Surprisingly the petition and affidavit filed for condonation of delay in both cases is stereo type and bereft of details. For better understanding, paragraph 3 of the said affidavit filed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in C.M.A.SR.No.48329 of 2008, the other case, is extracted hereunder:- "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." It is therefore, clear that the affidavit in the present case also has been filed casually without giving any details as to the delay. The attitude of the Transport Department is very callous and apparently the Transport Department is taking the court for granted. 5. In this case, the award was passed on 27. 2004. The copy application has been filed on 22. 2008, after 3-1/2 years from the date of passing the award. This delay has not been properly explained as is evident from paragraph 3 of the affidavit which has been already extracted above in paragraph 3 of this order. The unexplained delay of more than 3-1/2 years in filing the copy application, therefore, cannot be viewed leniently by this Court. On the contrary it has to be condemned as it will affect the rights of the litigant who have the benefits of the orders of the Court in their favour. 6. These two cases were taken up today only to highlight the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner transport corporation in pursuing the appeal against the award. In this case also, the Secretary to Government, in-charge of Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division-I, Coimbatore are directed to take necessary steps to ensure that such delay does not occur in future. In this case also, the Secretary to Government, in-charge of Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division-I, Coimbatore are directed to take necessary steps to ensure that such delay does not occur in future. Suitable action should be taken against the concerned officials for not pursuing the matter diligently thereby causing great prejudice to the claimant. This court is at pains to state that the officials of the petitioner transport corporation are not showing due respect to the orders passed by the Tribunal, granting the relief to the claimants. The court is constrained to observe as above to ensure that similar instance do not happen in future. 7. The petitioner transport corporation without any just or reasonable cause delayed the payment of compensation. The claimant is suffering for the last four years due to the injury caused in the road accident. In view of the undue delay caused by the petitioner transport corporation and the protracted litigation faced by the claimant, for no fault of theirs, the petitioner transport corporation has to compensate the claimant by way of cost in addition to the compensation as per award. Hence, the petition filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the claimant 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.