Supreme Court: Injury From Tree Branch Falling On Stationary Vehicle Not Covered Under Motor Vehicles Act
THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has held that injuries caused by the fall of a roadside tree branch on a stationary vehicle do not amount to a motor accident arising out of the “use of a motor vehicle” under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the injured claimant from ₹17.10 lakh to ₹25 lakh.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had apportioned compensation liability among BBMP, the insurer of the autorickshaw, and the State Horticulture Department.
The case arose from a 2007 incident in Bengaluru where K.K. Umesh Kumar, travelling in an autorickshaw, took shelter from heavy rain after the vehicle was stopped by the roadside. While the autorickshaw remained stationary beneath an old tree, a branch fell on the vehicle, causing grievous injuries that resulted in permanent paraplegia.
Examining the scope of Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court held that although the expression “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” has received a liberal interpretation, the vehicle must have some causal connection with the accident. The Bench observed:
“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 Section 166 specifically may not be appropriate.”
The Court further noted that while municipal authorities have a duty to maintain roadside trees, it would be unrealistic to expect constant monitoring of every tree in expanding urban areas.
Despite deciding the legal issue against the claimant, the Court declined to leave him without immediate relief. Noting the life-altering nature of his injuries, the Bench observed:
“A question however refuses to leave us. Will the respondent be forced to contend for compensation in another round of litigation? Is this conclusion in the interest of justice? ... A person who has suffered such life altering grievous injuries, being left in lurch, without any money to sustain himself, does not appeal to the conscience of justice.”
Invoking Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court enhanced the compensation to ₹25 lakh with interest while leaving the High Court’s apportionment of liability undisturbed and directing the concerned authorities to deposit the amount within four weeks.
Case Citation: The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors., 2026 INSC 637.