Carmel Convent tree mishap: HC tells Chandigarh admn to pay ₹1.5-cr relief within two weeks

The order by the bench of justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor came after the Chandigarh administration filed an appeal against the September 2025 judgment of the single-judge bench, directing it to pay the ₹1.5-crore compensation

A Punjab and Haryana high court division bench has directed the Chandigarh administration to pay a compensation of ₹1.5 crore to an injured student and the father of the 16-year-old student who died in the tree collapse incident at Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, in July 2022.

On July 8, 2022, a 70-foot heritage peepal tree had collapsed at Carmel Convent, killing 16-year-old Heerakshi and injuring 19 others. (HT File)

The order by the bench of justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor came after the Chandigarh administration filed an appeal against the September 2025 judgment of the single-judge bench, directing it to pay the ₹1.5-crore compensation.

The division bench directed the appellants (UT) to pay the amount within a period of two weeks in line with the order of the single judge, pending a final decision on the appeal. It also sought a response from the victim families by May 5.

On July 8, 2022, a 70-foot heritage peepal tree had collapsed at Carmel Convent during the lunch break, killing 16-year-old Heerakshi and injuring 19 others, including a bus attendant.

As per lawyer, Ramdeep Partap Singh, in September 2025, a single-judge high court bench had held the Chandigarh administration liable for negligence in the case and ordered the compensation.

The court had ordered the administration to pay ₹1 crore to the deceased student’s father. Another ₹50 lakh was awarded to a girl who lost her arm in the incident, along with an order that the administration bear all medical expenses, including the cost of a prosthetic arm or transplantation surgery.

The HC order had come on a plea from the injured girl and the deceased student’s family, seeking compensation as recommended by a government panel set up after the mishap.

However, the UT maintained that the incident was an “act of God”, an argument rejected by the single-judge bench.