The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

11 June 2026

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8455 of 2026

Result

Disposed

Bench

Sanjay Karol, N Kotiswar Singh

Citation

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 101 : 2026 INSC 637

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Constitution

Issue for consideration

Issue arose whether the appellant can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by respondent no.1 that were caused due to the falling of a roadside tree on the vehicle by which the respondent no.1 was travelling, but had stopped under the tree waiting for the rain to subside and then proceed further.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Claim petition – Falling of a tree on an auto, if would qualify as an accident for which claim can be filed – Respondent was traveling in auto and due to heavy rain, stopped under the tree waiting for the rain to subside and then proceed – However, branch of the tree got detached and fell on the top of the vehicle, injuring the respondent who was then admitted to the hospital and received treatment – Claim petition filed seeking compensation – Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the incident was a natural calamity – In the first round, the High Court dismissed the matter on the point of delay – In the second round, the High Court awarded Rs.17,10,500/- as compensation and, directed the Insurance Company of the auto to pay 50% of the amount, while the appellant and the State Horticulture Department were to pay one-fourth each – Challenge to:

Held: In view of the liberal interpretation of the term ‘use’, in ordinary circumstances, the presence of the respondent in the auto rickshaw suffice as ‘use’ – Motor vehicle itself does not play an active role in the accident – It is not part of the proximate cause of the accident, thus, a claim u/s.166 specifically may not be appropriate – However, 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 – It is within the domain of this Court, as the final Court to ensure the law, as implemented, specially in cases like these, is humane and in accordance with the salutary principles of the Constitution – Compensation as determined by the High Court, insufficient, owing to technical approach adopted by the High Court – In view thereof, total compensation enhanced to Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest as determined by the High Court, to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition – Apportionment of liability remain undisturbed – Constitution of India – Art.142. [Paras 13, 15]

Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted. 2. The issue for our consideration is whether the appellant can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by respondent no.1 that were caused due to the falling of a roadside tree on the vehicle by which the respondent no.1 was travelling, but had stopped under the tree waiting for the rain to subside and then proceed further. 3. The facts in which this question arose are as follows: Respondent no.1 was travelling on 23rd June 2007 in an auto from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium when due to heavy rain it was req

View Subscription Plans →