Supreme Court: In a significant judgment addressing the standard of care owed by manufacturers and maintenance contractors of passenger elevators in the context of consumer protection and tort liability, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that passenger elevators constitute a mode of vertical transportation and must be treated as common carriers, thereby attracting a heightened duty of care towards their users.
Distinguishing the cause of the accident from the cause of action for deficiency in service, the Court affirmed that a manufacturer who undertakes comprehensive maintenance cannot evade liability by attributing the immediate cause of the accident to human error when persistent defects remained unrectified despite repeated notice. Having identified the defect and proposed the remedy, appellant’s OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (OTIS) failure to implement the remedial measure or otherwise ensure the lift’s safety amounted to deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) apportionment of liability between manufacturers, maintenance contractors and occupiers and holding them jointly and severally liable where their combined failures compromise passenger safety.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the dispute arose from a fatal lift accident that occurred on 20 March 2003 at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) office complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
The appellant, OTIS manufactured and installed the lift in December 2001. Thereafter, under a comprehensive maintenance and repair contract dated 24 May 2002, OTIS undertook responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the lifts in the complex. The building itself was under the management of the Military Engineering Service (MES), while RAW occupied and used the premises.
On the day of the incident, 13 officers, including the deceased, were travelling down from the 11th floor after a meeting. The lift suddenly stopped between the 6th and 7th floors. After switching off the power supply, rescue operations commenced. The first trapped officer was rescued successfully. However, while the deceased, the second trapped officer, was being rescued and was partly inside and partly outside the lift cabin, the lift unexpectedly moved downward, crushing his neck between the cabin roof and the floor, resulting in his death.
Following the accident, a criminal case was registered. Prof. C.M. Bhatia of IIT Delhi was requested to investigate the technical cause of the accident. His report concluded that the immediate cause of the accident was the manual release of the lift’s mechanical brakes through the Brake Release Key in the machine room.
The widow and children of the deceased filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC, claiming compensation against OTIS, RAW and MES.
The NCDRC held all three respondents jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and awarded compensation of ₹3,01,48,195 with interest at 9% per annum from 20 March 2003, the date of death, payable within 90 days, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply until realisation. While liability was joint and several, the NCDRC apportioned responsibility at 70 per cent to OTIS, 25 per cent to MES and 5 per cent to RAW.
RAW’s appeal and MES’s appeal against the NCDRC’s order stood dismissed. OTIS alone pursued the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The complainant also challenged the NCDRC’s refusal to proceed with execution during the pendency of OTIS’s appeal.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether OTIS could avoid liability by relying upon the technical report attributing the immediate cause of the accident to the manual release of the Brake Release Key by MES personnel?
-
Whether the NCDRC correctly apportioned liability between OTIS, MES and RAW?
-
Whether the execution proceedings could remain pending merely because OTIS’s appeal was awaiting decision?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court observed that elevators have become indispensable to modern urban life and that passengers entrust their safety entirely to the system over which they exercise no control. Recognising this vulnerability, the Court asserted that passenger elevators constitute a mode of vertical transportation and ought to be treated as common carriers, thereby attracting a heightened duty of care towards users. It further observed that, in public spaces, the manufacturer, maintenance contractor and owner of the premises together perform the role of the carrier and may be held jointly and severally liable where their combined failures cause injury to passengers.
In support of this heightened standard, the Court cited a 137-year-old decision of the Supreme Court of California, Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574 (1889), which observed that “the aged, the helpless, and the infirm daily us[e] these elevators” and that “the law, therefore, throws around such persons its protection, by requiring the highest care and diligence”.
The Court drew an important distinction between the cause of the accident and the cause of action giving rise to liability. Although technical report concluded that the immediate cause of the accident was the manual release of the Brake Release Key, the Court held that this finding could not be viewed in isolation.
The Court observed that Lift No. 6 had suffered repeated and persistent malfunctions from shortly after its installation until the fatal incident. Numerous communications sent by MES between April 2002 and February 2003 repeatedly informed OTIS about breakdowns, stoppages and defects. OTIS itself had acknowledged that voltage imbalance was causing frequent breakdowns and had recommended installation of a voltage corrector stabiliser “for the protection and safe operation” of its equipment.
The Court held that OTIS, being both the manufacturer and the comprehensive maintenance contractor, occupied a position of unique technical knowledge and control over the lift’s safety systems. Under Clause 3.1 of the maintenance contract, OTIS had assumed a continuing obligation to maintain the lift in a condition that would “avoid risk of accident”.
The Court found that after identifying the need for a stabiliser, OTIS neither ensured that the recommendation was implemented nor refused to certify the lift for continued use. It continued to permit the lift to operate despite repeated breakdowns.
The Court also noted that OTIS failed to produce attendance registers, duty records or log books demonstrating compliance with its contractual obligation to depute trained mechanics. Equally significant was the absence of any evidence that OTIS had trained RAW or MES personnel regarding safe rescue procedures during lift stoppages. Having identified the defect and proposed the remedy, OTIS’s failure to implement the remedial measure or otherwise ensure the lift’s safety amounted to deficiency in service.
The Court held that the manual release of the Brake Release Key was not a standalone event but occurred only because the lift had become stranded due to an unresolved defect. Therefore, the manual intervention did not absolve OTIS from liability.
Recognising elevators as a mode of vertical transportation, the Court held that passengers entrust their safety entirely to the system and that a manufacturer and maintenance contractor owe a heightened duty of care comparable to that of a common carrier. The Court further observed that, from the consumer’s perspective, the manufacturer, operator and owner may all constitute duty bearers and can be held jointly and severally liable, leaving questions of inter se apportionment to be worked out separately.
Regarding MES’s liability, the Court found negligence in failing to maintain attendance records and in permitting access to the machine room during rescue operations. RAW lapse was confined to inadequate oversight of contract performance. However, neither possessed the technical expertise available to OTIS.
Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCDRC’s order holding OTIS, MES and RAW jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, the Court upheld the NCDRC’s apportionment of liability at 70 per cent to OTIS, 25 per cent to MES and 5 per cent to RAW.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant. Since OTIS’s appeal had been dismissed, the reason for withholding execution no longer survived. The NCDRC was directed to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law.
[OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1407, decided on 29-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Nair, Adv. Mr. Manik Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Zubia Rehan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sharad Bhansali, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitra Yashodhan Parande, Adv. Ms. Rishbha Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv. M/s Ap & J Chambers, A