Facts
The deceased, a senior RAW officer, was fatally crushed while being rescued from an elevator that had stopped between floors in the RAW office complex. The lift, manufactured and maintained by OTIS under a comprehensive maintenance contract with MES, had a documented history of repeated malfunctions. The deceased’s widow and children filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation against OTIS, RAW, and MES. The NCDRC held all three jointly and severally liable, apportioning liability as 70% to OTIS, 25% to MES, and 5% to RAW. OTIS appealed.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether OTIS, MES, and RAW were liable for the fatal elevator accident.
(b) Whether the NCDRC correctly apportioned liability among the parties.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court held that a passenger elevator is to be treated as a common carrier, imposing a heightened duty of care upon the manufacturer, maintenance contractor, operator, and owner of the premises. A consumer should not bear the burden of identifying the precise tortfeasor, and all duty-bearers are jointly and severally liable in the first instance. (Paras 2–4).
(b) The Court found that OTIS had repeatedly been informed of persistent defects in Lift No. 6, had itself recommended installation of a voltage stabiliser, yet neither ensured implementation of the recommendation nor rendered the lift safe pending compliance. Under the maintenance contract, OTIS assumed comprehensive responsibility to maintain the lift in a condition that avoided the risk of accidents and failed to discharge that obligation. (Paras 23–32).
(c) Although the Technical Report attributed the immediate cause of the accident to manual release of the brake by MES personnel, the Court held that this did not absolve OTIS because the rescue situation itself arose from its failure to rectify recurring defects or provide adequate training for emergency rescue procedures. (Paras 24–32).
(d) The Court held that RAW's liability was limited to failure of oversight, while MES was negligent in leaving the machine room accessible during rescue and failing to maintain supervisory records. Accordingly, the NCDRC's apportionment of liability required no interference. (Paras 33–35).
Held
OTIS's appeal was dismissed. The NCDRC's award of compensation and apportionment of liability (OTIS 70%, MES 25%, RAW 5%) was affirmed. The complainant's appeal against the execution order was allowed, and the NCDRC was directed to proceed with execution.
Ratio
"A passenger elevator is a common carrier, and the manufacturer, maintenance contractor, operator and owner owe a heightened duty of care; where their deficiencies collectively cause injury, they are jointly and severally liable, with inter se apportionment depending on their respective degree of knowledge, control and responsibility."
Relevant Para
Para 32
"We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the NCDRC that OTIS was the party principally deficient in service. 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. OTIS was not a stranger to the defect that culminated in the accident. It was cognizant of the problem, and it had itself proposed the remedy. Having done so, its failure to ensure that the remedy was implemented, or, alternatively, to render the lift safe by other means pending its installation constitutes deficiency of service."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 756
Decided on: 29 July 2026
Case Title: M/s Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Alok Aradhe, J.