{"id":26462,"date":"2026-06-20T12:22:53","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T12:22:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26462"},"modified":"2026-06-20T12:28:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T12:28:23","slug":"mact-jurisdiction-falling-tree-accidents-supreme-court-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/mact-jurisdiction-falling-tree-accidents-supreme-court-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"MACT Jurisdiction in Falling Tree Accidents: Supreme Court 2026 Judgment Explained and Why It May Be Reconsidered"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court of India recently in The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors. 2026 INSC 637<\/em> decided on June 11, 2026 held that a passenger injured by a tree branch falling upon a stationary autorickshaw cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This article respectfully dissents from that ruling on the anterior jurisdictional question. Drawing upon the purposive construction of beneficial legislation, the canons of liberal interpretation, comparative jurisprudence, and the doctrine of proximate nexus, this article argues that the phrase ‘arising out of the use of a motor vehicle’ is wide enough to encompass environmental hazards encountered by a passenger during vehicular transit \u2014 including temporary stoppages. A stationary vehicle in the course of a journey remains ‘in use.’ The claimant’s access to the MACT forum should not be defeated by an unduly narrow causation model that the statutory text does not mandate.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n