ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present application is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur (H.P.) in M.A.C. No. 16-2 of 2008 title Rahul Vs. Surjeet Singh and another. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is pleaded that on 01.07.2007 at 6.45 p.m. on national highway in front of hand pump of village Balh (Ghumarwin) Sh. Surjeet Singh owner of truck No.HP-19-B-0975 driven vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused multiple injuries to minor applicant namely Rahul aged nine years. Applicant Rahul filed petition under Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur (H.P.) granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,84,050.04 (Rupees one lac eighty four thousand fifty and four paise) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit of award amount. It is further pleaded that minor has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. Award was announced on 30.12.2013. Appeal filed on 22.10.2014. It is further pleaded that minor applicant was represented by his natural mother who is illiterate and rustic village woman. It is further pleaded that delay is bona fide and not intentional. Prayer for acceptance of application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant No.2 Oriental Insurance Company pleaded therein that application is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that applicant is estopped from filing the present application due to his own acts, deeds, conducts and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that there are no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 4. As per pleadings of parties following issues were framed on 17.06.2015: (1) Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay as alleged? ………Onus upon applicant. (2) Whether applicant has no cause action to file the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act? ………… Onus upon non-applicant No.2 Oriental Insurance Company. (3) Relief. 5. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties at length and Court also perused the entire record carefully. Findings upon Issue No.1 with reasons: 6. AW-1 Smt. Urmila Devi has stated that her minor son Rahul met with an accident and claim was filed before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ghumarwin Distt. (3) Relief. 5. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties at length and Court also perused the entire record carefully. Findings upon Issue No.1 with reasons: 6. AW-1 Smt. Urmila Devi has stated that her minor son Rahul met with an accident and claim was filed before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur (H.P.). AW-1 Smt. Urmila Devi has further stated that case was decided in the month of December 2013 and she came to know about the award in January 2014. She has further stated that she obtained copy of award. She has further stated that thereafter her son fell ill and copy of award was misplaced. She has further stated that she inquired from her husband about the copy of award and she searched copy of award and same was located in the month of September 2014. She has denied suggestion that she was satisfied with the award. She has also denied suggestion that appeal was not filed within time intentionally. 7. AW-2 Sh. Suresh Kumar has stated that minor Rahul is his son and he met with an accident. He has stated that petition was filed before Tribunal by minor through his mother. He has further stated that he came to know about the award in the month of September 2014 and he asked his wife and demanded copy of award from her. He has further stated that copy of award was given to him by his wife in the month of September 2014. He has further stated that thereafter he came to Shimla. He has further stated that his wife could not hand over copy of award to him on account of illness of his minor son. He has admitted that he was informed by his Advocate who conducted the case before the Tribunal that appeal could be filed before High Court. He has denied suggestion that appeal was not filed intentionally in time. He has stated that appeal was not filed because file was misplaced. He has stated that he did not bring the medical record regarding illness of his minor son. 8. Non-applicants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of non-applicants submitted that non-applicants do not want to lead any rebuttal evidence. Separate statement recorded and placed on record. 9. He has stated that he did not bring the medical record regarding illness of his minor son. 8. Non-applicants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of non-applicants submitted that non-applicants do not want to lead any rebuttal evidence. Separate statement recorded and placed on record. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case appeal is filed by the minor namely Rahul aged 9 years. It is well settled law that Limitation Act 1963 is not operative upon minor as per Section 6 of Limitation Act 1963. Testimonies of AW-1 and AW-2 are trustworthy, relevant and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of AW-1 & AW-2. Non-applicants did not appear in witness box for the purpose of cross examination. Hence adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against non-applicants. See AIR 1999 Apex Court 1441 title Vidyadhar Vs. Mankikrao & Another. Also see AIR 1994 Apex Court 1341 title Ishwarbhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera and another. Hence issue No. 1 is decided in favour of applicant. Findings upon Issue No.2 with reasons: 10. Submission of learned Advocates appearing on behalf of non-applicants that applicant has no cause action to file the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.2 was upon non-applicants. None appeared on behalf of non-applicants in order to prove issue No.2. Hence adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against non-applicants. Even in the present case applicant is minor aged 9 years. It is well settled law that law of limitation is not operative upon minor as per Section 6 of Limitation Act 1963. It is also well settled law that minor can file judicial proceedings after attaining the age of majority. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 Apex Court 1353 titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Others that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by way of filing the case at belated stage. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 Apex Court 1353 titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji & Others that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by way of filing the case at belated stage. (2) Refusing to condone delay would result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice would be defeated. (3) If delay is condoned then highest that would happen would that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (4) Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted. (5) Doctrine must be applied in a rational commonsense manner. (6) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other then cause of substantial justice should be preferred. (7) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide. (8) Litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. (9) Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds. In view of above stated facts issue No. 2 is decided against non-applicants. Relief: 11. In view of findings upon issues No.1 & 2 application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the ends of justice keeping in view the fact that appellant is minor aged 9 years. Parties are left to bear their own costs. CMP (M) No. 1557 of 2014 is disposed of.