Karnataka HC Awards ₹2.82 Crore Compensation To Bengaluru Man Left Paraplegic After Tree Branch Fall
· Free Press Journal
Bengaluru, Sep 29: The Karnataka High Court has awarded ₹2.82 crore compensation to a Bengaluru resident who had to live with paraplegia, unable to move both the upper and the lower limbs after a tree branch fell on him in 2024.
High Court awards compensation
Visit saltysenoritaaz.com for more information.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order invoking the public law remedy, observing that there is material distinction between an unexpected accident and a known danger which remains unaddressed.
G Chandrashekhara, the petitioner, a resident of Nagarabhavi, worked at a private company. On March 7, 2024, he was walking on the road when a branch of the tree located inside the compound of Good Shepherd Convent on Convent Road fell on his neck.
Partly allowing the petition, which originally sought ₹5 crore compensation, the court has directed the Commissioner of BBMP (now GBA) and the DCF, Forest Unit, BBMP to pay ₹2.77 crore (adjusting ₹5 lakh already paid by BBMP and ₹3 lakh paid by the school, which had promised to provide education to the victim's daughter till she passed class XII).
ED Arrests Guwahati Man In IPL Betting Money Laundering Case, Sends Him To 6-Day CustodyDisability assessment and liability
The disability certificate issued by the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital assessed the disability at 85%. The court conceded the petitioner's contention that his functional disability is 100%.
The school contended that it had written a letter to BBMP, seeking permission to prune the branch that fell on Chandrashekhara on February 22, 2024, around 14 days before the mishap took place. The court held that the BBMP owed a statutory and public duty in relation to the tree, notwithstanding that the tree stood on the private premises.
Also Watch:
Court rejects BBMP argument
The court also dismissed the BBMP argument that the incident was an act of god/natural event, stating that the liability of the civic agency could not be either limited or excluded.