The Supreme Court on Thursday held that injuries caused by a tree branch falling on a stationary autorickshaw would not qualify as a motor vehicle accident merely because the injured person was sitting inside the vehicle [Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Vs Umesh Kumar].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that the motor vehicle must have some proximate connection with the accident for a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to be maintainable.

“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 said.

However, the Court decided to invoke its inherent power to do justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to enhance the compensation payable to an autorickshaw passenger who suffered life-altering injuries after the vehicle, while parked, was hit by a tree branch.

"It is within our domain, as the final Court of the country to ensure the law, as implemented, specially in cases like these, is humane and in accordance with the salutary principles of the Constitution," the Court reasoned.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by by the Commissioner of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against a Karnataka High Court order fastening 25 percent liability on it of compensation payable for injuries suffered by one, KK Umesh Kumar.

Kumar was travelling in an autorickshaw from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru on June 23, 2007. Due to heavy rain, he asked the driver to stop by the side of the road. While the autorickshaw was stationary under an old tree, a branch fell on it, causing grievous injuries to Kumar.

He filed a claim seeking ₹50 lakh as compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed it in 2013, treating the incident as a natural calamity.

The Karnataka High Court later awarded ₹17.10 lakh as compensation and directed that 25 percent be paid by the municipal corporation, 50 percent by the autorickshaw insurer and 25 percent by the State's Horticulture Department.

Before the Supreme Court, the municipal body and the Horticulture Department argued that the incident was a natural occurrence over which they had no control.

The Court examined the doctrine of “Act of God” and earlier decisions on municipal liability for falling trees. It said that municipal corporations do have a duty to maintain trees within city limits and ensure periodic upkeep.

However, the Court said it would be unrealistic to expect civic authorities to maintain constant vigil over every tree or shrub in an expanding city.

“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 (as a precautionary measure),” the Court said.

The Bench also underlined the importance of trees in cities, describing urban spaces as “ever-expanding concrete jungles.” It is the primary duty of the government authorities to increase green cover in cities as far as possible, and to facilitate the long term survival of each tree or plant, the Court added.

The Court clarified that it was not trivialising Kumar’s injuries or absolving civic authorities of their duty to maintain trees.

However, it said Kumar could not be left to pursue another round of litigation after suffering serious injuries, including total paraplegia of both lower limbs with bladder and bowel incontinence.

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to Kumar to ₹25 lakh with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Court did not disturb the apportionment of liability fixed by the High Court and directed the disbursal of the amount within four weeks.

BBMP was represented by Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli with advocates Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar KB, Dharm Singh, Akhila Wali, Abhishek Kanyalur, Divya Sinha, Ashritsai Torgal and Tanya Chillar.

The respondents were represented by advocates Ashish Gopal Garg, Shweta Garg, Rakesh Garg, Pankaj Seth, Manjeet Chawla, Jyoti, Shruti Jain, Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda and Jadhav Vishal.

[Read Judgment]