JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The Courts are always blamed by everyone whosoever gets an opportunity to do so, for the delay in delivering justice without pointing out the hard reality that, - it is on account of unwilling parties that the major part of the delay takes places'. This is one such case. 2. First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 was filed by the present applicant, appellant original opponent No. 2 challenging judgment and award dated 07-04-1984 passed by MACT (Main), Surendranagar in MACP No. 148 of 1983. In fact, two MACPs were filed being MACP Nos. 147 and 148 of 1983. In MACP No. 148 of 1983, the Tribunal passed the following order :- (2) Claim Petition No. 148 of 1983 is partly allowed. The applicant, Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi, is awarded compensation of Rs. 34,100/- (Rs. Thirty Four Thousand One Hundred only) with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of PAUPER application till realisation with proportionate costs. Both the opponents shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation, as awarded to the applicant, Akbarbhai, and they shall bear their own costs. Initially the applicant shall be paid Rs. 4,100/- with interest on the entire amount and the costs. The balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the applicant- Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi, in any scheduled nationalised Bank with a direction to the Bank to pay every year Rs. 3,000/- to Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi with pro rata interest. The Bank shall not advance any loan on the amount so deposited in the name of the applicant.... 3. The First Appeal was filed in the year 1984. Along with that, Civil Application No. 4048 of 1984 was filed for stay. 3.1 On 21-11-1984, the Court passed the following order :- Rule. Interim stay of the award qua the applicant in the meantime. Mr. Champaneri waives service for the Resp. No. 1. 3.2 Learned Advocate for opponents states that later on, in the month of September 1985, the Court made Rule absolute with no order as to costs, without granting request for disbursement. 4. Interim stay of the award qua the applicant in the meantime. Mr. Champaneri waives service for the Resp. No. 1. 3.2 Learned Advocate for opponents states that later on, in the month of September 1985, the Court made Rule absolute with no order as to costs, without granting request for disbursement. 4. Learned Advocate for opponents states that he has instructions to state that, - till date, the claimant has not received any amount towards compensation for the accident which took place somewhere in the year 1982,' for which the petition was filed in the year 1982, which was disposed of by judgment and award in the year 1984 against which, First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 along with Civil Application No. 4048 of 1984 was filed, wherein aforesaid orders were passed. 5. It is painful that a person, who suffered accident in the year 1982, is without any compensation till 2010, i.e. for long 28 years. 6. This First Appeal of 1984 was listed before the Court for final hearing in the year of 2007 and the Court passed the following order on 22-08-2007 :- None for the parties. The appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim relief, if any, is vacated. No costs. 6.1 This order was passed in First Appeal No. 1446 of 1984, with First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 with Cross Objection Nos. 45 and 46 of 2007. Thereafter, the present Misc. Civil Application is filed seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the confirmed opinion that, 'granting of this application, which was filed on 24-08-2007, will amount to doing injustice to the claimants.' The Insurance Company did not bother to get the 1984 matter heard in the year 2007, which on account of nobody remaining present was dismissed by the aforesaid order. That is not end of the matter even thereafter, it did not bother to get it restored in 2007 itself, though an application was filed on 24-08-2007 for restoration, may be to contend in case any execution is filed for praying implementation of Award dated 07-04-1984 that proceeding (not First Appeal than Misc. Civil Application) is pending before the High Court. Civil Application) is pending before the High Court. There is no reason set out or no submission is made explaining this inaction as to why the present application, filed on 24-08-2007, was not taken up for hearing and appropriate orders were not obtained. 8. It will be in the interest of justice if the First Appeal is allowed to remain dead, which died in the year 2007 by order dated 22-08-2007 i.e. 16 days short of 3 years and the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount to the claimants. 8.1 Accordingly, the present Misc. Civil Application is rejected and it is rejected with cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), which also shall be paid by the applicant-Insurance Company to the claimants not by way of penalty but as compensation for prolonging the agony of the claimants for 3 more years for no justifiable reason at all and using the money which would have been paid to the claimants in 2007, if the First Appeal would have been heard and decided. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani for the applicant appellant-insurance company submitted that this cost is not required to be imposed for the simple reason that after the First Appeal was dismissed on 22-08-2007, there was no proceeding pending before the Court and there was no stay against the claimants from recovering the amount which was already deposited by the Insurance Company. 9.1 The submission made by learned Advocate for the applicant sounds attractive but it is far from the truth as Misc. Civil Application seeking restoration was very much pending which was filed on 24-08-2007 soon after the order was passed on 22-08-2007. Due to which the claimants could not have executed the award and could not have received the amount of award. The learned Advocate for the claimants is right in not asking the claimants to execute the award, more particularly, when the First Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and a Misc. Civil Application is already filed for restoration. At this stage, it is easy for the learned Advocate for the applicant appellant-Insurance Company to say that the claimants were free to execute the award and get the amount awarded. Civil Application is already filed for restoration. At this stage, it is easy for the learned Advocate for the applicant appellant-Insurance Company to say that the claimants were free to execute the award and get the amount awarded. But, in reality, the moment execution would have been filed, the Insurance Company would have defended the same by saying that the First Appeal filed before the High Court is dismissed for non-prosecution and it is yet to be heard on merits and we have already filed Misc. Civil Application for restoration of the said First Appeal. 9.2 In the opinion of this Court, there could not have been any better way than the present one, viz. get the matter dismissed for non-prosecution, file an application for restoration and then sit over that application and don't move it for hearing. Therefore, this Court is not able to accept the submission made by the learned Advocate for the applicant and not to grant the cost. The applicant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit this amount (of costs) before the Tribunal within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount, i.e. amount of costs, amount of award and interest accrued thereon to the claimants immediately on claimants approaching the Tribunal for the same by Account Payee Cheque, in no case later than six weeks from the date the claimants filing an application for the same. Order accordingly.