In a significant judgment reinforcing passenger safety standards, the Supreme Court has held that elevators installed in public buildings must be treated like common carriers, meaning those responsible for their operation owe users the highest degree of care. Dismissing an appeal filed by M/s OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd., the Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) finding that the company was primarily responsible for a fatal elevator accident at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) office complex in New Delhi.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic incident on March 20, 2003, when a lift carrying 13 senior officers became stuck between the sixth and seventh floors of the RAW headquarters in New Delhi. During the rescue operation, while one officer was being helped out of the lift, the elevator unexpectedly moved downward, causing fatal injuries. The deceased officer's wife, Rashmi Handa, and their two children later approached the NCDRC seeking compensation.
The NCDRC found OTIS, RAW and the Military Engineering Service (MES) jointly liable and awarded compensation exceeding ₹3 crore with interest. It apportioned liability at 70% to OTIS, 25% to MES and 5% to RAW. OTIS challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe began its judgment by emphasizing the growing dependence on elevators in modern cities. The Court observed that passengers place complete trust in elevator systems and therefore deserve the highest level of protection.
The Bench observed,
"It is not merely reasonable, but a legal necessity to impose a heightened duty to care."
The Court further held that elevators should be regarded as a mode of vertical transportation, placing manufacturers, maintenance contractors and building owners under a shared responsibility to ensure passenger safety.
Examining the maintenance contract, the Court noted that OTIS had undertaken comprehensive responsibility for maintaining the lift, including keeping it in a condition that avoided any risk of accidents. The contract also required deployment of trained mechanics, maintenance of attendance records and regular inspections.
Why the Court Held OTIS Primarily Responsible
The Supreme Court found that the lift had experienced repeated breakdowns months before the accident. Official correspondence showed that OTIS had received several complaints regarding the malfunctioning elevator, including reports that it frequently stopped between floors and remained out of service.
Importantly, OTIS itself had identified voltage fluctuations as a recurring problem and had recommended installation of a voltage stabiliser. However, the Court noted that despite recognising the risk, the company neither ensured that the stabiliser was installed nor declared the lift unsafe for continued operation.
The Bench observed,
"Having itself identified the remedy, it was incumbent upon OTIS... to have followed up on this recommendation."
Although a technical investigation concluded that the immediate cause of the accident was the manual release of the lift's brake mechanism during the rescue operation, the Supreme Court held that this did not absolve OTIS. According to the Court, the manual intervention became necessary only because the lift had already malfunctioned due to persistent defects that had not been effectively addressed.
The Court also noted that OTIS failed to produce attendance registers or maintenance records required under the contract and there was no evidence that it had trained personnel on proper emergency rescue procedures.
Decision
Finding no error in the NCDRC's reasoning, the Supreme Court upheld the allocation of liability-70% on OTIS, 25% on MES and 5% on RAW. The Court held that OTIS, being both the manufacturer and comprehensive maintenance contractor, possessed the highest degree of technical knowledge and responsibility for ensuring the lift's safe operation.
The Bench observed,
"A party that undertakes the comprehensive maintenance of a machine... owes a heightened duty of care towards its users."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed OTIS's appeal. It also allowed the appeal filed by the deceased officer's widow against the execution order, directing the NCDRC to proceed with execution of the compensation award in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors. (with Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 2020)
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2014 (with Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 2020)
Judge: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
