How a man left paralysed after a tree branch fell on an autorickshaw won ₹25 lakh compensation

Suppose a passenger is travelling in an auto rickshaw and it suddenly starts raining heavily. He asks the auto driver to pull the vehicle over to the side of the road to wait for the rain to subside. The driver parks the vehicle under an old tree, but one of its branches falls onto the vehicle, causing life-altering injuries to the passenger.

In the above situation, who will be held liable for paying the compensation to the victim: The vehicle's insurer, local authorities responsible for maintaining public spaces, or can it be denied as no one is directly responsible? Recently, the Supreme Court of India attempted to answer this while dealing with the case of a person who was paralysed in an incident similar to the one described above in Bengaluru on June 23, 2007.

Case history

First, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking compensation of ₹50 lakh. Tribunal dismissed the claim on account of it being a "natural calamity"

Second, the High Court of Karnataka initially dismissed the claim on the point of delay. In the second round of proceedings, the HC allowed the appeal and awarded ₹17,10,500 to be paid in the following ratio: 50% by the insurer of the autorickshaw, 25% by the municipal corporation (appellant), and 25% by the Horticulture Department.

The apportionment of liability was later challenged by the civic body in the apex court. But the Supreme Court increased the liability using its constitutional powers

What the court said

The apex court analysed whether a falling tree branch qualifies as a motor vehicle accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The provision of the Act allows road accident victims or their legal representatives to claim compensation by proving fault or negligence against the offending driver or owner.

The Supreme Court held that in such cases, a claim seeking compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be filed especially against the civic body.

Moreover, even as the auto-rickshaw was legally considered to be "in use" while parked on the side of the road during heavy rain, the Court concluded that the vehicle was not the direct cause of the harm.

"...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," SC said.

Even as the top court found that a standard MVA claim was legally inappropriate in this case, it used its constitutional powers under the Article 142 of the Constitution to provide justice to the victim.

SC noted that leaving a paralyzed person "in lurch, without any money to sustain himself, does not appeal to the conscience of justice."

The top court increased the compensation earlier fixed by the high court to ₹25 lakh while ordering that the "The apportionment of liability shall remain undisturbed."

In a way the Supreme Court held the financial liability against the involved parties, though none were directly held responsible for the incident.