Dismissed¶13

Suman Kumari and Others v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2026FAO/4011/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Sivaraman ((2020) 4 SCC 594), compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 must be awarded as per the provisions in vogue on the date of the accident; the Commissioner's order did precisely this, and accordingly the appeal has no merit. ¶12

Suman Kumari and Others Vs Union of India — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

DEEPAK KUMAR

¶2

2026.02.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶3

FAO-4011-2019 (O&M)

¶4

-2-

¶5

The issue is no more res-integra and has been answered by Supreme Court in the case of ‘K. Sivaraman & Ors. vs. P. Sathishkumar and anr.’ (2020) 4 SCC 594 , observing as under:

¶6

“32. It is pertinent to note that no similar position of law for the determination of the higher amount of compensation payable was adopted under the 1923 Act by this Court in Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala. This Court, being a Bench of two judges, is bound by the categorical position of law laid down in Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala, both being judgments rendered by larger Benches of this Court. Consequently, we hold that the relevant date for the determination of compensation payable is the date of the accident and the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force.

¶7

xxx xxxx xxxx

¶8

Though the accident took place in 2008, the appeal is being decided over 12 years later. We take note of the fact that following the order of remand by the High Court, the employer deposed as PW2 and stated that the deceased had worked in his establishment for about three years. The employer duly proved Exhibit P5 in the course of his evidence which was the monthly pay certificate indicating that the deceased was drawing a monthly wage of L 32,000, including expenses towards food. Significantly, no appeal was filed by the respondents against the judgment of the High Court enhancing the compensation. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation ordered by the High Court in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution. Having clarified the law as noted above, the appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶9

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶10

FAO-4011-2019 (O&M)

¶11

-3-

¶12

In view of settled proposition of law, the compensation under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 has to be awarded as per the provisions in vogue on the date of accident. This is precisely what the Commissioner has ordered.

¶13

In view of above, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

¶14

February	18, 2026		(P	ankaj Jain)
Dpr				Judge
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶15

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Suman Kumari and Others v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumari and Others v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees State Insurance Corp Vs Raj Mahal Hotel and Restaurant(a.H.J.R)

Employees State Insurance Corp Vs Raj Mahal Hotel and Restaurant

Employees State Insurance Corp Vs Raj Mahal Hotel and Restaurant

Sumit Vs Satish and Ors.

Naib Singh Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Subhash Chhabra Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Another