$~33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

MAC.APP. 339/2006

ARKESH JAIN & ORS.

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr.Anuj Jain, Advocate

versus

MOHD. ISHRAR & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr.Saurabh

Kumar Tuteja & Ms. Priyanka Parida,

Advocates for R-3

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

MAC.APP. No.339/2006

1.

Our Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to

equality before law.

2.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides:-

or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.’

3.

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

only of religion, race, caste, sex, place or birth or any of them.’

4.

A common saying that :

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 ₹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:-

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 financial dependency

has to be made out and proved by the petitioners themselves

which the petitioners have failed to prove in the present case.

All these judgments have been perused but not even one

of them is dealing or discussing the criteria of determining

compensation in the case of an unmarried daughter aged

about 19 years and as such not even one of the judgments

cited and relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is of any

help to the petitioner in the present case.

petitioner. None of the mentioned judgments, otherwise also

pertain to the aspect of compensation in the case of female

child aged about 19 years. Even after taking the education

record of the deceased to be meritorious, the hard reality in

the present Indian social set up remains that under normal

circumstances, a daughter in any family would be got married

off by the age of 21 to 25, and once married whatever her

income be would normally be contributed to her matrimonial

home and not to her parental home. As parents in the present

Indian set up shy away from taking