Injury Due To Tree Fall On Stationary Vehicle Not 'Motor Accident'; Can't Lodge MACT Claim : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that injuries caused by the fall of a roadside tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain do not constitute an accident arising out of the "use of a motor vehicle" for the purposes of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Nevertheless, considering the grave injuries suffered by the victim, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to him from ₹17.10 lakh to ₹25 lakh by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had apportioned liability for compensation among the municipal corporation, the insurer of the autorickshaw and the State Horticulture Department.

The case arose from an incident in June 2007 when respondent K.K. Umesh Kumar was travelling in an autorickshaw from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. Owing to heavy rain, the vehicle was stopped by the roadside. While it was stationary beneath an old tree, a branch detached and fell on the autorickshaw, causing severe injuries to the passenger.

The Court examined the doctrine of "Act of God" and surveyed decisions from English, American and Indian jurisprudence. It acknowledged that municipal authorities have a duty to maintain roadside trees and ensure public safety. However, it observed that it would be unrealistic to expect authorities to keep constant vigil over every tree in a city or to remove all potentially weak branches.

"It is a reality that the boundaries of City are ever expanding in India, in view of the constant migration, and so the number of people that a Corporation is serving increases overtime. It would be unrealistic to expect that authorities of the Corporation can maintain a constant vigil over each tree/shrub. In the similar vein, while it may be perfectly within contemplation that an old branch of an old tree may give way at any time, the prudent call cannot be that all branches are slashed with a saw."

The Bench noted that neither the victim's decision to take shelter under the tree nor the falling of the branch could reasonably have been anticipated by the authorities or the autorickshaw driver. It therefore held that fastening liability on the municipal corporation under the Motor Vehicles Act would be unfair.

Interpreting Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court observed that while the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" has been given a liberal construction in earlier judgments, the motor vehicle must still have some causal connection with the accident. In the present case, the vehicle was merely the location where the victim happened to be when the branch fell. The accident could equally have occurred if the victim had been standing beneath the tree as a pedestrian.

"In view of the stated liberal interpretation of this term, will the presence of the respondent in the auto rickshaw suffice as 'use'. In ordinary circumstances, it probably would have. But take for instance a scenario where the respondent was a pedestrian and stood near or under the tree in an attempt to take shelter from the heavy rain and now the branch falls on him. This is an entirely likely scenario. In other words, the motor vehicle itself does not play an active role in the accident. It is not part of the proximate cause of the accident. For that reason, a claim under Section166 specifically may not be appropriate."

Despite answering the legal issue against the claimant, the Bench expressed concern that the victim, who had suffered "life-altering grievous injuries", should not be forced into another round of litigation. The Court recorded that medical evidence showed total paraplegia of both lower limbs along with bladder and bowel incontinence.

Observing that the compensation awarded by the High Court was inadequate, the Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹25 lakh with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. While doing so, it left undisturbed the High Court's apportionment of liability among BBMP, the insurer and the Horticulture Department. The Court directed all concerned parties to deposit the amounts within four weeks.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 165(1) & Section 166 – Scope of "Arising out of the use of motor vehicles" – Liability for Natural Calamities / Act of God – Injury caused by the falling of a roadside tree/branch on a stationary vehicle parked to take shelter from rain – Held that for a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to be maintainable, the motor vehicle itself must play an active role or be part of the proximate cause of the accident - While the term "use" has been liberally interpreted to include stationary or parked vehicles, the mere presence of a victim inside a stationary vehicle where the injury is caused entirely by an external natural event (like a falling tree branch during heavy rain) does not satisfy the requirement of proximate cause under the Act - The vehicle did not play an active role in the accident, as a pedestrian standing under the tree would have faced the same risk - It would be unfair to fasten liability upon the Municipal Corporation under the Motor Vehicles Act for an unfortunate natural occurrence that was not within the contemplation of the authorities. [Paras 10-13]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Enhancement of Compensation – Permanent Disability – Paraplegia - Even though the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not strictly appropriate as the vehicle was not the proximate cause of the accident, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to prevent a person with life-altering, grievous injuries (total paraplegia with bladder and bowel incontinence) from being left in the lurch by another round of litigation - Finding the High Court's assessment technically restrictive and insufficient, the Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹25,00,000/- with interest from the date of the claim petition, keeping the original apportionment of liability undisturbed to serve the ends of justice. [Paras 12-15]

Case: The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Click here to read the judgment