The Supreme Court has ruled that elevators must be treated as “common carriers” and that manufacturers, maintenance contractors and owners of premises have a heightened duty of care towards passengers using them. Upholding a compensation award in a fatal lift accident at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) headquarters in New Delhi, the Court affirmed that OTIS Elevator Company bore primary responsibility for the incident.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed OTIS’ appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had held OTIS, the Military Engineering Service (MES) and RAW jointly liable for the death of a senior officer who was crushed during a rescue operation after a lift malfunctioned.
The Court upheld the NCDRC’s apportionment of liability, fixing 70 per cent responsibility on OTIS, 25 per cent on MES and 5 per cent on RAW.
Recognising the role of elevators in modern urban life, the Bench held that passengers have no control over the functioning of elevators and are entirely dependent on the system’s safety. It therefore held that elevators should be treated on par with common carriers, which owe a higher standard of care to those they transport.
The Court observed that the concept of a “carrier” in the context of elevators extends beyond the operator to include the manufacturer, the maintenance agency and the owner of the premises where the elevator is installed. These entities, it said, share a collective obligation to ensure passenger safety.
The case arose from a 2002 accident at the RAW office complex at Lodhi Road, where a lift carrying 13 senior officers became stuck between floors. During the rescue, the deceased officer was halfway out of the lift when it suddenly moved downward, fatally crushing him.
The officer’s widow and children approached the NCDRC seeking compensation. The Commission awarded them Rs 3.01 crore with interest and held all three entities jointly liable.
Before the Supreme Court, OTIS argued that the accident occurred because MES personnel manually released the lift’s brake mechanism during the rescue. It also contended that it had previously warned authorities about voltage fluctuations affecting the lift and had recommended installation of a voltage stabiliser.
The Supreme Court rejected these submissions, holding that the immediate cause of the accident could not be viewed in isolation from the recurring defects that had repeatedly been brought to OTIS’ notice. The Bench found that OTIS, as both the manufacturer and comprehensive maintenance contractor, possessed exclusive technical expertise and was fully aware of the lift’s persistent electrical problems.
The Court noted that OTIS had itself identified voltage fluctuations as a recurring issue and suggested installation of a stabiliser but failed to ensure that the recommendation was implemented or to prevent continued operation of the lift until it was rendered safe. This, the Bench held, amounted to a clear deficiency in service.
It also observed that warning stickers inside the lift could not substitute proper training of personnel handling emergency rescue operations. While RAW retained a limited supervisory responsibility and MES was faulted for lapses in maintenance and rescue management, the Court concluded that OTIS bore the principal responsibility for the fatal accident.
Consequently, the Court dismissed OTIS’ appeal and also allowed the deceased officer’s widow’s appeal challenging the NCDRC’s refusal to proceed with execution of the compensation award. It directed the Commission to continue with the execution proceedings in accordance with law.
The post Supreme Court: Elevators are common carriers; OTIS liable for fatal lift accident at RAW office appeared first on India Legal.