Motor vehicle not proximate cause where static object falls; compensation granted under Article 142.

Respondent No. 1 was traveling in an auto-rickshaw in June 2007. Due to heavy rain, the vehicle was pulled over and became stationary under an old roadside tree.

A branch detached and fell on the vehicle, causing Respondent No. 1 to suffer total paraplegia with bladder/bowel incontinence.

The Claims Tribunal dismissed the initial claim as a "natural calamity".

Following a remand from the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, the High Court of Karnataka awarded ₹17,10,500/-, apportioning 25% liability to the Appellant (BBMP), 50% to the Insurer, and 25% to the Horticulture Department.

The Appellant challenged this apportionment, arguing the incident was an "Act of God" beyond municipal control.

1. Whether a municipal corporation can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries caused by a falling tree branch onto a stationary vehicle.

2. Whether the falling of a tree branch onto an auto-rickshaw qualifies as an accident "arising out of the use of motor vehicles" under Section 165(1) of the Act.

The court examined the doctrine of Vis Major (Act of God), citing Nichols v. Marsland and The Majestic, defining it as an inevitable accident occurring without human intervention.

It applied the rule of strict liability and its exceptions (default of plaintiff or Act of God) as discussed in Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v. State of Gujarat.

Regarding municipal duties, the court referenced Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, which held that while a statutory duty exists to prevent latent dangers, negligence must be examined against foreseeable risks.

For the interpretation of "use of motor vehicles," the court relied on Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, which broadly interpreted "arising out of the use" as meaning "connected with".

The Court reasoned that while municipalities have a duty to maintain city trees, they cannot maintain "constant vigil" over every branch in an expanding urban environment.

It noted that the falling branch was not reasonably foreseeable by the authorities or the driver.

Crucially, the Court analyzed the causal relationship required under Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act; it determined that for a claim to lie under this Act, the motor vehicle must play an active role or be the proximate cause of the accident.

Since the vehicle was merely a stationary shelter and the tree would have fallen regardless of the vehicle's presence (e.g., on a pedestrian), the nexus between the "use" of the vehicle and the injury was insufficient to sustain a claim specifically under the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure "humane" justice for a victim with life-altering injuries, the Court refused to set aside the award. Instead, it enhanced the total compensation to ₹25,000,000/- with interest, maintaining the original apportionment of liability (25% to BBMP) to ensure the respondent received immediate relief without further litigation. The appeal was disposed of with directions for disbursement within four weeks.