The Supreme Court has ruled that elevators installed in public buildings must be treated as “common carriers”, placing a heightened duty of care on manufacturers, maintenance contractors, operators, and building owners.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe affirmed the apportionment of liability fixing 70% responsibility on OTIS, 25% on the Military Engineering Service (MES), and 5% on the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).
The bench also directed the NCDRC to proceed with execution proceedings for payment of compensation to the victim’s family.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) finding that OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. was primarily liable for a fatal elevator accident that claimed the life of a senior government officer in 2003.
The case arose from a tragic incident on 20 March 2003 inside the RAW headquarters at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. An elevator carrying thirteen occupants became stranded between the sixth and seventh floors after abruptly stopping.
During the rescue operation, officials manually opened the lift doors and began evacuating passengers. While the deceased officer was halfway out of the elevator, the lift suddenly moved downward, crushing him between the cabin and the floor, resulting in his death. An FIR under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered, and IIT Delhi Professor C.M. Bhatia conducted a technical investigation into the accident.
The Supreme Court devoted considerable attention to the evolving role of elevators in modern urban life. Observing that cities are increasingly growing vertically, the Court emphasized that elevators are no longer merely mechanical devices but an essential mode of transportation where passengers surrender complete control over their safety.
The Court held that elevators should legally be regarded as common carriers, similar to other modes of public transport, because passengers entirely rely on their safe functioning. Consequently, manufacturers, maintenance contractors, operators, and owners owe passengers the highest standard of care.
The Bench further observed that consumers injured in elevator accidents should not be burdened with identifying the respective fault of different parties. Instead, they should be entitled to recover compensation from all responsible entities, leaving courts to determine their inter se liabilities separately.
A central factor influencing the Court’s decision was the extensive documentary evidence demonstrating that the elevator had suffered repeated breakdowns long before the fatal accident.
The record revealed numerous complaints between April 2002 and February 2003, including repeated instances where Lift No. 6 remained out of service, stopped between floors, developed operational defects, and attracted frequent complaints from users.
Importantly, OTIS itself acknowledged in July 2002 that voltage fluctuations were causing repeated malfunctions and formally recommended installation of a 50 KVA voltage stabilizer for the safe operation of the lift. Despite recognising the safety risk, the Court found that OTIS neither ensured installation of the stabilizer nor suspended operation of the lift until appropriate safeguards were implemented.
OTIS argued that the accident resulted solely from human error because someone manually released the lift’s mechanical brakes during the rescue operation using the Brake Release Key located in the machine room.
The Supreme Court accepted that the technical investigation attributed the immediate cause of the accident to manual release of the brakes. However, it distinguished between the cause of the accident and the cause of the underlying service deficiency.
The Court held that the need for manual rescue itself arose because the elevator had malfunctioned due to persistent defects that OTIS had failed to rectify despite repeated warnings over several months. Thus, the manual intervention did not break the chain of causation or absolve OTIS from responsibility.
The Court closely examined the maintenance contract executed between MES and OTIS.
Under the agreement, OTIS was responsible for comprehensive maintenance, including inspection, repair, replacement of electrical and mechanical components, deployment of trained mechanics, maintenance of attendance registers, complaint registers, and ensuring that the lifts remained in sound condition to avoid accidents.
The Bench noted that OTIS failed to produce attendance records, maintenance logs, or other contemporaneous documents demonstrating compliance with these contractual obligations. It also found no evidence that OTIS had trained RAW or MES personnel regarding safe rescue procedures during lift breakdowns.
The Supreme Court held that OTIS, being both the manufacturer and comprehensive maintenance contractor, possessed superior technical knowledge and exclusive responsibility for ensuring the elevator’s safe operation.
The Court observed that after identifying voltage fluctuation as a recurring problem, OTIS should have followed up to ensure installation of the recommended stabilizer, refused to certify the elevator as safe, or otherwise taken effective measures to prevent continued operation until the defect was eliminated.
Its failure to do so amounted to a clear deficiency in service under consumer protection law.
While affirming liability against RAW and MES, the Supreme Court agreed that their responsibility was comparatively limited.
RAW, as the occupier and beneficiary of the services, was held liable for inadequate oversight and failure to ensure that recurring defects were properly addressed. However, the Court acknowledged that RAW lacked the specialised technical expertise possessed by OTIS.
MES, on the other hand, was faulted for failing to maintain contractual attendance records verifying the presence of OTIS mechanics and for leaving the machine room accessible during the rescue operation, enabling manual release of the brake mechanism. Nevertheless, these failures were held to be secondary compared to OTIS’ primary responsibility for maintaining the lift.
The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC’s award of over ₹3.01 crore as compensation, together with interest. Since OTIS’ appeal has now been dismissed, the Court also allowed the widow’s appeal challenging the NCDRC’s refusal to proceed with execution proceedings.
The Bench directed the NCDRC to resume execution proceedings in accordance with law so that the compensation awarded to the victim’s family can be enforced without further delay.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
