Known dangerous tree branch leaves pedestrian paraplegic; Karnataka High Court awards ₹2.77 crore and orders public-safety hazard tracking system

On 7 March 2024, at approximately 10:00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a public road in Bengaluru, a branch of a Gulmohar tree situated within the premises of Good Shepherd Convent School and projecting over the road fell on his neck, causing severe spinal injuries and traumatic paraplegia.

He underwent spinal decompression and stabilisation surgery, prolonged hospitalisation and rehabilitation, and claimed medical expenses of approximately ₹26.82 lakh. A disability certificate assessed his medical disability at 85%.

The school had written to the BBMP on 16 February 2024, submitted on 22 February 2024, stating that a thick branch projected over the road, could break at any time, and posed danger to school children, residents and vehicles.

The BBMP granted permission to prune the branch on 7 March 2024, the very day on which it fell, but no effective interim protective measure was shown to have been taken.

The BBMP paid ₹5 lakh and the school paid ₹3 lakh to the petitioner. The school also undertook to provide free education to the petitioner’s daughter until completion of the 12th standard.

The petitioner sought compensation of ₹5 crore, reimbursement of medical and future treatment expenses, employment for his wife, education expenses and employment for his daughter.

The BBMP disputed liability and contended that the claim involved disputed questions of negligence, causation and apportionment which ought to be decided in a civil suit.

The school contended that it had acted diligently by approaching the BBMP and could not remove the branch without statutory permission.

1. Whether the petitioner established that his injuries were caused by the fall of the Gulmohar branch situated within the school premises and projecting over the public road.

2. Whether the BBMP owed a statutory or public duty to inspect, regulate, prune or remove a dangerous tree situated on private property but affecting users of a public road.

3. Whether the school and the BBMP had prior knowledge, or ought reasonably to have known, that the branch posed a danger to the public.

4. Whether the BBMP’s failure to take timely protective action amounted to negligence and had a proximate causal connection with the petitioner’s injuries.

5. Whether the private location of the tree absolved the BBMP, and whether liability was required to be apportioned between the BBMP and the school.

6. Whether the fall of the branch constituted an act of God or force majeure excluding or limiting liability.

7. Whether the disputed questions concerning notice, negligence, causation, compliance with statutory duties and apportionment could be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.

8. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the public-law jurisdiction of the High Court and from which respondent.

9. What compensation was payable towards medical expenses, future earning capacity, attendant care, future medical treatment, pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

10. Whether directions could be issued for employment to the petitioner’s wife or daughter.

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution and the public-law compensation jurisdiction under Article 226, recognising bodily integrity and safe use of public roads as aspects of the right to life.

Sections 323 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and 257 of the BBMP Act, 2020 empower the municipal authority to require the securing, lopping or removal of dangerous trees or branches, including where immediate action is necessary.

Section 8(3) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 recognises that permission should not be refused where a tree constitutes a danger to life or property or obstructs traffic.

The Court relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, which recognises liability where a known or reasonably discoverable dangerous tree causes injury; The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai v. K. Karthik, concerning municipal liability for failure to remove dangerous trees; Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, which requires duty of care, breach, causation and foreseeability; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, which cautions that public authorities are not liable merely because an accident occurred, absent proximate negligence or conscious breach of duty.

The Court also relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and related authorities recognising compensation as a public-law remedy for established infringement of fundamental rights.

For quantum, the Court used the principles developed in motor-accident cases, including Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, as guidance rather than as directly applying the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court found that the occurrence, the fall of the branch and the resulting injuries were established by medical records, the criminal case and the conduct of the respondents, including their payments to the petitioner.

The school’s written complaint provided actual notice of the specific danger to the BBMP before the incident; consequently, this was not a case of an apparently healthy tree suddenly falling without warning.

Although the tree stood on private property, Section 323 and the BBMP’s own SOP imposed a public-safety responsibility upon the BBMP once the danger affecting the public road was brought to its notice.

The BBMP’s failure to conduct an urgent inspection, cordon the area, warn road users or take other interim measures, while processing the pruning request for approximately thirteen days, constituted a failure to respond with the urgency required by the known risk.

The causal connection was direct because the very branch identified in the complaint fell and injured the petitioner.

The plea of act of God was rejected because no extraordinary storm, cyclone, lightning or other irresistible natural event was established, and the risk of the branch falling had already been specifically reported.

The Court held that the matter could be decided under Article 226 because the material facts—notice, the dangerous branch, the BBMP’s response, the accident and the injury—were substantially undisputed and did not require a full civil trial.

The BBMP was held primarily responsible. Although the school had some responsibility arising from its knowledge, ownership or occupation of the premises and its delay in forwarding the complaint, the Court found insufficient proximate causation to impose a separate monetary liability on the school in the writ proceedings; the BBMP was left free to pursue contribution separately.

For quantum, the Court treated the petitioner’s functional disability as 100%, despite the medical disability certificate recording 85%, because traumatic paraplegia prevented him from performing the physical functions required for his employment.

Applying a monthly salary of ₹41,212, 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 15, it awarded ₹1,03,85,424 for loss of future earning capacity.

It further awarded ₹24,44,271 for net medical expenses, ₹27 lakh for attendant care, ₹1.17 crore for future medical, physiotherapy and rehabilitation expenses, and ₹5 lakh each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

The ₹5 lakh already paid by the BBMP was deducted, but the school’s separate ₹3 lakh payment was not deducted from the BBMP’s liability.

The petitioner was awarded gross compensation of ₹2,82,29,695, reduced by the ₹5 lakh already paid by the BBMP, leaving a balance of ₹2,77,29,695, with interest at 6% per annum from 7 March 2024 until payment.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay the amount by RTGS within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified order.

The BBMP was granted liberty to pursue contribution or recovery proceedings against the school.

The school was directed to honour its undertaking to provide free education to the petitioner’s daughter until completion of the 12th standard.

No mandatory direction was issued to provide employment to the petitioner’s wife or daughter, as no enforceable statutory scheme, sanctioned post or binding undertaking was established.

The Court also issued general directions to the State and civic authorities to establish a traceable, time-bound public-safety hazard detection and response mechanism, including emergency action, digital records, nodal officers, independent verification and periodic reporting.