C.T. Ravikumar, J.

These appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 6.2.2006 in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1743/2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was filed by the appellant in the former appeal. She preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation upon feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal as per the award thereon. The latter appeal has been preferred against the very same award by the first respondent who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, along with a petition to condone an inordinate delay of 3593 days in filing the appeal viz. CMA 1920/2016. The said appeal has been filed with such an inordinate delay, seeking the prayers to set aside the said award and to remand the case to the Tribunal and to afford him an opportunity to adduce evidence. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is only appropriate firstly to take up CMA 1920/2016 in MACA 1643/2016 at first and then subject to the decision thereon MACA 1643/2016. For convenient sake the parties are referred to hereafter, in accordance with their original status before the Tribunal unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

CMA No. 1920 of 2016 in MACA No. 1643 of 2016 and MACA No. 1643 of 2016:

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 6.2.2006 in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1743/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur with an inordinate delay of 3593 days in filing the appeal and in other words, about a decade since the said judgment. Virtually, the first respondent seeks the prayers to set aside the award dated 6.2.2006 in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1743/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur and to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to adduce evidence. When an inordinate delay of 3593 days occurred in filing an appeal carrying such prayers the appellant is bound to satisfy this court that the delay occasioned is not due to his gross negligence and there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and also till such time this appeal has been filed along with the aforesaid application to condone the delay. In this context it is relevant to refer to the second proviso to Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act. Going by the said proviso the High Court is clothed with the power and jurisdiction to condone the delay if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The award is dated 6.2.2006. As per the award sought to be challenged the 2nd respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.86,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and costs. The 2nd respondent was given the right to recover the amount thus deposited to satisfy the award from the first respondent viz., the petitioner in the above Miscellaneous Application, the appellant in the latter appeal. Still, the first respondent, has chosen to file an appeal against the judgment and award dated 6.2.2006 only on 10.6.2016. In fact, the certified copy of the judgment produced by the first respondent-appellant would reveal that he filed the copy application only on 3.6.2016 and it was delivered to him on 4.6.2016 itself. In such circumstances, it is evident that if the delay is properly calculated it would be more than ten years. Taking note of the delay shown in the application viz., 3593 days in filing the appeal and that it is sought to be preferred by the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle involved in the accident with the prayer to set aside a judgment and award in favour of the claimant passed as far back on 6.2.2006 we have no hesitation to hold that it cannot be condoned in a casual manner for the mere asking and that the petitioner has to be put under onerous duty to explain the delay and to satisfy us regarding the existenc