The Supreme Court held that injuries caused by the fall of a tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; however, exercising Art.142 Const. of India, it enhanced compensation and maintained the apportionment ordered by the High Court.

on

Facts

The respondent was travelling in an autorickshaw in Bengaluru on 23.06.2007. Due to heavy rain, the autorickshaw was stopped beneath a roadside tree. A branch detached from the tree and fell on the vehicle, causing grievous injuries to the respondent, including paraplegia.

A claim petition seeking compensation was filed before the MACT. The Tribunal dismissed the claim treating the incident as a natural calamity. After multiple rounds of litigation, the Karnataka High Court awarded compensation of ₹17,10,500 and apportioned liability as follows: 25% on BBMP, 25% on the Horticulture Department, and 50% on the insurer of the autorickshaw. BBMP challenged the fastening of liability before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

(a) Whether BBMP could be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries caused by the fall of a roadside tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain.

(b) Whether such an incident constituted an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” under S.165 and S.166 MV Act.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Doctrine of Act of God

The Court examined the doctrine of Act of God (vis major) through English, American and Indian authorities. It reiterated that an act of God is an extraordinary natural event which could not reasonably have been anticipated or prevented by human skill or prudence. The Court referred to Nichols v. Marsland, Greenock Corporation, The Majestic, and Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v. State of Gujarat. (Paras 5–7)

(b) Duty of Municipal Authorities

The Court acknowledged that municipal authorities have a duty to maintain roadside trees and prevent foreseeable danger. However, it observed that it would be unrealistic to expect constant vigilance over every tree in a city and that the sudden falling of an old branch during heavy rain was not necessarily within the contemplation of the authorities. (Paras 8–10)

(c) Whether the Accident Arose Out of the Use of a Motor Vehicle

The Court analysed S.165 MV Act and the decision in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, which gives a liberal interpretation to the expression “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle”.

Nevertheless, the Court held that in the present case the motor vehicle did not play an active role in causing the injury. The proximate cause of the accident was the falling tree branch, not the use of the autorickshaw. The same injury could equally have occurred if the respondent had been standing beneath the tree as a pedestrian. Therefore, a claim under S.166 MV Act was not strictly maintainable. (Paras 11–14)

(d) Exercise of Article 142

Despite answering the legal issue against the claimant, the Court was unwilling to leave a severely injured victim without effective relief. Noting that the respondent had suffered total paraplegia and that the compensation awarded by the High Court was inadequate, the Court exercised Art.142 Const. of India to do complete justice. (Para 15)

Held

The Court held that the accident did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle in the manner contemplated by S.165 and S.166 MV Act. However, invoking Art.142 Const. of India, it enhanced compensation from ₹17,10,500 to ₹25,00,000 with interest from the date of the claim petition and maintained the High Court’s apportionment of liability among BBMP, the insurer, and the Horticulture Department.

Ratio

An injury caused by the fall of a tree branch on a stationary vehicle during heavy rain does not constitute an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle under S.165 and S.166 MV Act where the motor vehicle is not the proximate cause of the injury; however, the Supreme Court may grant appropriate relief under Art.142 Const. of India to do complete justice. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 637
Decided on: 11 June 2026
Case Title: The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; N. Kotiswar Singh, J.