Tree Branch Falling on Stationary Autorickshaw Is Not a Motor Vehicle Accident Under Section 166 MVA: Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2026 INSC 637

Date of Judgment/Order: 11 June 2026

Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a roadside tree branch falls on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rain and the vehicle itself has no active or proximate role in causing the injury, the incident cannot properly be treated as an accident “arising out of the use of motor vehicles” for a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that although the expression “use of motor vehicle” must receive a liberal interpretation and can include stationary vehicles, there must still be a causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the injury. A claim under Section 166 MVA is not appropriate where the same injury could have occurred even if the injured person had merely been standing as a pedestrian under the tree.

Summary: The respondent was travelling in an autorickshaw in Bengaluru on 23.06.2007 when, due to heavy rain, the vehicle was stopped by the side of the road under an old tree. A branch detached from the tree and fell on the autorickshaw, causing serious spinal injuries to the respondent, including paraplegia of both lower limbs with bladder and bowel incontinence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim as arising from a natural calamity, but in the second round of proceedings the Karnataka High Court awarded compensation of ₹17,10,500 and apportioned liability among BBMP, the autorickshaw insurer and the Horticulture Department. Before the Supreme Court, BBMP contended that the incident was an act of God and that it could not be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act. Examining the doctrine of act of God, municipal negligence, the duty to maintain roadside trees, and the meaning of “arising out of the use of motor vehicles” under Sections 165 and 166 MVA, the Court held that while municipal authorities do have a duty to maintain trees, the falling of the branch in the facts of the case was not sufficiently connected with the use of the autorickshaw to sustain a Section 166 MVA claim.

Decision: The Supreme Court settled the question of law in favour of the appellant by holding that a Section 166 MVA claim was not appropriate because the motor vehicle was not the proximate cause of the accident. However, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Court refused to leave the severely injured respondent remediless after years of litigation and enhanced the total compensation to ₹25,00,000 with interest as determined by the High Court from the date of filing of the claim petition. The apportionment of liability fixed by the High Court was left undisturbed, and BBMP, the insurance company and the Horticulture Department were directed to deposit their respective shares directly into the respondent’s bank account within four weeks. Pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.