In The Commissioner, BBMP v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, the Supreme Court held that injuries caused by a falling tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw during heavy rainfall do not constitute a “motor accident” under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court clarified that compensation under the MV Act requires a proximate nexus between the accident and the use of a motor vehicle. The victim suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after a tree branch fell on an autorickshaw parked by the roadside for shelter. The Court observed that the vehicle merely served as the location of the incident and played no causal role in the injury. The actual cause was the falling tree branch, making the event primarily a natural occurrence rather than an accident arising from the use of a motor vehicle. However, considering the victim’s severe permanent disability and the prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice. While holding the claim technically outside the scope of the MV Act, the Court enhanced the compensation from ₹17.10 lakh to ₹25 lakh with interest, ensuring relief to the injured claimant.