2025:HHC:25024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.59 of 2025 Decided on: 30.07.2025 Tilak Raj ….Petitioner Versus HRTC & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant/ appellant: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Respondent No.5 has been served and is represented by Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. 2. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 stands filed. 3. Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate, representing respondent No.5 has submitted that he is under instructions to adopt the reply already filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 2 2025:HHC:25024 4. By way of this application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay in filing appeal against the award dated 07.12.2023, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi in Claim Petition No.66/2023/2018. 5. The delay in filing the appeal is stated to be of 400 days. 6. It is averred in the application that the applicant/appellant was not aware of the intricacies of law and he was under bonafide impression that the award amount, as granted by learned Tribunal, was final and there was no provision for its enhancement. It is further stated that the applicant/appellant having suffered grievous injuries was in pain and could not obtain legal advice due to ill health. As per the applicant/appellant, it was in the month of November 2024 when he visited his counsel and was apprised about his right of appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their reply. The contents of the application have been contested. It has been pointed out that in compliance to the award passed by learned Tribunal, an amount of Rs.12,11,034/- was deposited by the respondent-HRTC in the Tribunal on 10.06.2024. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant had filed an application for release of the 3 2025:HHC:25024 amount in the month of July 2024 and accordingly the amount was released in his favour. 8. There is no rebuttal to the stand taken by the respondents. 9. The most important factor, while adjudging the plea for condonation of delay, is the bonafides of the party seeking such relief. In the instant case, the stand taken by the applicant/appellant has not only been falsified, but his bonafides have also been rendered questionable. A specific assertion has been made in the application that the applicant/appellant was not aware about the legal right to seek enhancement of compensation till November 2024, whereas he had filed the application for release of award amount in July 2024. It cannot be assumed that the applicant/appellant had sought the release of the amount without the help of his Advocate. That being so, the applicant/appellant is not entitled for any indulgence. No case for condonation of delay is made out. 10. In result, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge July 30, 2025 (vt)