The Supreme Court has clarified that although the expression “arising out of the use of motor vehicles” under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to be given a liberal interpretation, such interpretation still requires a causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the injury. Where the vehicle is merely the place where the injured person happens to be present, and the accident is caused by an external event such as the falling of a tree branch, with the motor vehicle having no active role and not forming part of the proximate cause, the claim does not properly fall within Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Having settled the question of law against maintainability under Section 166 in the facts of the case, the Apex Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 17.10 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs, together with interest as determined by the High Court, calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Court left the apportionment of liability undisturbed, meaning that the appellant, the insurance company, and the Horticulture Department were to bear liability in the same proportions as fixed by the High Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined the doctrine of “Act of God” or vis major and noted that such defence applies where the event is a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature which could not reasonably have been foreseen, or if foreseen, could not have been resisted by human care and skill. It referred to prior authorities to note that extraordinary natural forces may excuse liability in strict liability situations, while also recognising that where a public authority is under a statutory duty to guard against latent danger to the public, negligence may still attract liability if preventive action expected in the circumstances was not taken.
The Bench observed that since the tree stood on the roadside within the city, the Municipal Corporation did owe a duty to look after such trees and to undertake periodic maintenance so that such unfortunate incidents do not happen. At the same time, the Bench recorded that it would be unrealistic to expect the Corporation to maintain constant vigil over each tree or shrub, and that although an old branch of an old tree may give way, prudence does not require that all branches be cut. The Bench also emphasised the importance of preserving trees in expanding cities and clarified that it was not trivialising the respondent’s injuries or absolving the Corporation of its general duty of maintenance.
On the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Bench considered Sections 165 and 166 and the expression “arising out of the use of motor vehicles.” It noted that earlier precedent had given a liberal interpretation to the word “use”, including situations where the vehicle is stationary. However, the Bench distinguished the present case by holding that although the respondent was inside the autorickshaw, the motor vehicle itself did not play an active role in the accident and was not part of the proximate cause. The Bench illustrated that the same injury could equally have occurred had the respondent been a pedestrian taking shelter under the tree. On that reasoning, it held that a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not appropriate in such facts.
The Bench nevertheless observed that compelling a grievously injured person to undergo another round of litigation for compensation would not be in the interest of justice. It recorded the serious nature of the injuries, including total paraplegia of both lower limbs with bladder and bowel incontinence, and further observed that even the compensation determined by the High Court was insufficient because of a somewhat technical approach. In exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench considered it appropriate to ensure humane justice and enhance the compensation.
Briefly, the dispute concerns as to the liability of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries suffered by respondent no. 1 when a roadside tree branch fell on the autorickshaw in which he was travelling. On 23 June 2007, while travelling from Queens Road to Chinnaswamy Stadium, the respondent asked the auto driver to stop at the roadside due to heavy rain. While the vehicle was stationary under an old roadside tree, a branch detached and fell on the vehicle, causing injuries to the respondent, who was thereafter treated at Mallya Hospital.
A claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the claim on the ground that the incident was a natural calamity. The High Court initially dismissed the matter on delay, but after remand by the Supreme Court, in the second round the High Court awarded Rs. 17.10 lakhs, directing that 25% be paid by the appellant corporation, 50% by the insurer of the autorickshaw, and 25% by the Horticulture Department, Government of Karnataka.
