Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 637
📌 Paras 3
Respondent No. 1 sustained severe injuries, including total paraplegia, when a branch of a roadside tree fell on the auto-rickshaw he was travelling in. The auto had stopped under the tree due to heavy rain. A claim for compensation was filed, which was initially dismissed by the Claims Tribunal as a natural calamity and by the High Court on grounds of delay. After remand by the Supreme Court, the High Court allowed the claim, apportioning liability among the appellant (BBMP), the insurer, and the Horticulture Department.
📌 Para 2
Whether the appellant, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained by the respondent due to a falling tree branch, cons
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial