Maker, operator, owner all liable for lift crashes, occupants' safety: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruling placed collective responsibility on the manufacturer, operator and owner of an elevator to ensure user safety.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the manufacturer, maintenance operator and owner of premises housing an elevator are jointly and severally liable under public law to ensure the safety of passengers and compensate victims in the event of an accident, likening elevators to “common carriers” that owe users the highest duty of care.

A Supreme Court ruling has placed collective responsibility on the manufacturer, maintenance operator and owner of premises housing an elevator to ensure passenger safety. (Representational/Unsplash)

A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe upheld a 2014 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), fastening liability on OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd, the Military Engineering Service (MES) and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) for the death of former Indian diplomat Vipin Handa in a lift accident at the RAW headquarters in New Delhi in March 2003.

Dismissing OTIS’s appeal, the court affirmed the NCDRC’s direction awarding ₹3,01,48,195 as compensation to Handa’s widow and two children, along with interest at 9% per annum from March 20, 2003, the date of the accident, rising to 12% in case of default beyond 90 days. The consumer commission had apportioned liability at 70% on OTIS, 25% on MES and 5% on RAW. The top court also directed the NCDRC to proceed with execution of the award, bringing to an end over two decades of litigation.

In a judgment that lays down important principles on liability arising from elevator accidents, the bench said passengers entrust their safety entirely to an automated transport system over which they have no control, warranting a heightened legal duty on those responsible for its design, maintenance and operation.

“An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier,” held the court, adding that the manufacturer, operator and owner of the premises together constitute the “carrier” from the perspective of public law and “shall jointly and severally be liable to safeguard the user.”

The bench said consumers cannot be expected to unravel the inter se liabilities of multiple entities before obtaining compensation and should be entitled to recover damages from any of the joint operators.

The judgment emphasised that with cities increasingly growing vertically, elevators have become indispensable to urban life, making passenger safety “not merely expected but...a fundamental assurance that every elevator must provide.”

An elevator accident at RAW headquarters

The accident occurred on March 20, 2003, after a meeting of senior RAW officers on the 11th floor of the agency’s Lodhi Road headquarters. The elevator carrying 13 occupants stopped abruptly between the sixth and seventh floors.

During the rescue operation, while Handa was halfway out of the lift, it suddenly descended, crushing his neck between the lift cabin and the floor, resulting in his death. Eleven other occupants were rescued later. An FIR under Section 304-A of the IPC (causing death by rash and negligent death) was registered, and an IIT Delhi expert was asked to investigate the cause of the accident.

Former Indian diplomat Vipin Handa was killed due to an elevator malfunction at the Raw headquarters in New Delhi.

The diplomat’s family approached the NCDRC in 2005 seeking compensation of ₹1.89 crore. In January 2014, the Commission found OTIS deficient in service for installing and maintaining the lift without a recommended voltage stabiliser despite repeated complaints of malfunctioning, failing to station personnel or maintain attendance records, and not imparting emergency rescue training. It also held RAW and MES deficient for failing to ensure compliance with the maintenance contract and safety recommendations.

Before the Supreme Court, OTIS argued that the accident was caused solely by human error, relying on an IIT Delhi technical report which concluded that someone had manually released the lift’s mechanical brakes through the Brake Release Key kept in the machine room under MES’s control. The company also contended that it had repeatedly warned MES about voltage fluctuations and recommended installation of a voltage stabiliser, which was never installed.

Rejecting the contention, the bench held that the immediate cause of the accident could not be viewed in isolation from the prolonged history of defects in the lift.

Repeated breakdowns

The court noted that the record disclosed repeated breakdowns of the same lift from within months of its installation, with MES repeatedly writing to OTIS between April 2002 and February 2003 complaining of frequent stoppages, passengers getting stranded, persistent noise and failure to rectify defects.

OTIS itself had acknowledged in July 2002 that voltage fluctuations were causing recurring breakdowns and recommended installation of a 50 KVA stabiliser “for the protection and safe operation” of the lift. Yet, despite identifying the remedy, it neither ensured its implementation nor declared the lift unsafe for continued use.

“A party that undertakes the comprehensive maintenance of a machine, which is in the nature of a vehicle, owes a heightened duty of care towards its users,” noted the bench, holding that OTIS was fully aware of the recurring defects and yet allowed the lift to continue operating without necessary safeguards.

The court also found no evidence that OTIS had trained RAW or MES personnel in proper rescue procedures despite repeated breakdowns, observing that warning stickers against unauthorised interference with the lift mechanism could not substitute for affirmative safety measures.

While affirming OTIS’s primary liability, the bench held that RAW and MES also bore responsibility. RAW, as the occupier of the premises, had a residual duty to ensure that reports of persistent defects were acted upon, while MES failed to monitor OTIS’s contractual obligations and allowed the machine room to remain accessible during the rescue operation. Given their differing levels of technical expertise and control, the NCDRC’s apportionment of liability- 70% on OTIS, 25% on MES and 5% on RAW, required no interference, the court said.