1. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to equality before law.

2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides:-

‘The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.’

3. Article 15(1) of our Constitution further provides:-

‘The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place or birth or any of them.’

4. A common saying that :

‘A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life.’

has been quoted by the Supreme Court in the report Savita Samvedi (Ms) and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 380 while striking down Railway Board Circular dated 11.08.1992 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. The claim petition bearing Suit No.588/03/00 was filed by the parents and younger brother of the deceased Komal Jain seeking compensation for her death in a motor vehicular accident on 30.09.1999. The compensation has been denied by the learned Tribunal and even the case law cited on behalf of the claimants to claim just and reasonable compensation has not been discussed by the learned Tribunal observing that none of them dealt with the death of an unmarried girl.

6. The learned Tribunal felt it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs only under the head ‘emotional loss’.

7. The observation made by the learned Tribunal for denying the claim to the parents has shocked the judicial conscience of this Court. The reasons for arriving at the above conclusion given by the learned Tribunal are extracted hereunder:-

“12. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 on the basis of her affidavit tendered as PW1/A vide which para No.6 of which she has referred to the educational and professional qualifications of the deceased and referred to some documents like education certificate, age proof certificate and employment proof as CW/____ (Left Blank) and as per her statement tendered her affidavit, no such documents were ever tendered either on the first occasion or on any subsequent date. Even so in the interest of justice, since duly attested copies of mark-sheet of secondary examination and also school leaving certificate are on record, the date of birth of deceased is taken to be proved as 21.10.1980 thus, implying that the deceased was 19 years of age when she died. Also the said mark-sheet reflects meritorious record of the deceased with her getting grades like A1, A2 B1 and B2 and not less in all subjects. Also the mark-sheet of senior secondary certificate reflects the same trend of her academic record. However, there is no record of employment or any other professional studies thereafter but the deceased was certainly meritorious student and would have had a bright career had she continued to live. However, it is also a reality that deceased in due course of five or six years would also have got married off and her own marriage would have involved considerable expenses as per the social status of the parties. As such even if the deceased had turned into a bright professional with a rising career, her income contribution would in the normal circumstance have gone to her matrimonial home and not to her parents unless of course the parents would have proved otherwise. The petitioners have failed to prove their financial dependency upon their daughter particularly, as per the record, the petitioners themselves are young enough and the father of the deceased girl was only 47 years of age while the mother was around 41 years of age and there is no good reason shown as to why they were dependent on their studying daughter who was still and would have been married in due course of five-six years. It is true that petitioner No.1 has not been cross-examined by respondent No.3 also on any point whatsoever but f