Who Is Liable for an Elevator Accident? Supreme Court Explains Duty of Manufacturers, Operators, Owners

The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers, operators and owners of elevators are jointly and severally responsible for safeguarding users, observing that elevators have become an essential part of modern urban life and those responsible for their operation and maintenance owe a heightened duty of care.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that given the vulnerability of elevator passengers, the law imposes a heightened duty of care akin to that of common carriers, requiring those responsible for maintenance to ensure the highest standard of safety.

Court also clarified that the burden of identifying the inter se liabilities of joint tortfeasors should not rest on consumers seeking compensation for injuries caused while travelling in an elevator.

"For immediate relief, it is necessary for the court to recognise the injury and assess the compensation payable at the first instance," the Bench said.

It added that while apportioning liability among joint tortfeasors, courts would examine their contractual relationships and other circumstances before deciding the extent of liability and compensation payable by each party.

Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by M/s OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd against a 2014 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had held OTIS, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Military Engineering Service (MES) jointly and severally liable for the death of a senior RAW officer in an elevator accident.

How did the elevator accident occur?

On March 20, 2003, the senior RAW officer's neck was crushed during the descent of a lift carrying 13 occupants after a meeting in the building.

In 2005, the deceased's widow, Rashmi Handa, and their two children filed a petition before the NCDRC against OTIS, RAW and MES, seeking compensation of Rs 1.89 crore along with interest at 20% per annum from the date of the claim.

The NCDRC held OTIS deficient in service for installing and operating the lift without a Voltage Stabiliser despite being aware of the risk, failing to depute site personnel or maintain attendance records, and failing to provide evidence of any site assessment or emergency training to RAW and MES.

RAW and MES were also held jointly and severally deficient for failing to install the recommended stabiliser and to monitor and enforce OTIS's compliance with the maintenance contract. MES was additionally held liable for failing to maintain attendance records showing the presence of OTIS's site engineer.

The NCDRC awarded the complainants compensation of Rs 3,01,48,195 with interest at 9% per annum from March 20, 2003, the date of death, payable within 90 days. It directed that interest would rise to 12% per annum until realisation in case of default.

The liability was apportioned with RAW liable for 5%, MES for 25% and the remaining 70% liability cast upon OTIS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by MES and RAW as well.

Why did the Supreme Court hold OTIS principally liable?

Examining the apportionment of liability between OTIS, RAW and MES, the Bench noted the contractual provisions requiring OTIS to provide comprehensive repair and maintenance services, including renewal or replacement of electrical and mechanical parts for the smooth functioning of the lifts.

A qualified mechanic was required to be deployed daily during the intervals of 0700–1000 hours, 1230–1430 hours and 1630–1900 hours.

The contract also required OTIS to maintain attendance registers for each shift and a complaint register for each lift, to be certified every morning, Court noted.

The Bench further relied on correspondence between OTIS and MES in the months leading up to the incident. Between April and August 2002, OTIS was repeatedly informed through letters and telegrams about the persistent malfunctioning of Lift No. 6, the very lift involved in the accident.

Barely a month before the accident, MES complained that despite "repeated requests" made to named OTIS personnel regarding rectification of a noise defect in Lift No. 6, "no action has been taken so far to rectify the same". It again called upon OTIS to "rectify the defects immediately" and to "treat the matter (as) urgent".

The correspondence established that Lift No. 6 was the subject of continuing, unresolved complaints from the month following its installation until virtually the eve of the fatal accident, the Bench said.

"The correspondence demonstrates that the malfunctioning of Lift No. 6 was neither a passing nor an isolated occurrence, but a well-documented and continuing failure that persisted from the month following the lift's installation until shortly before the accident," the Bench said.

It noted that at least three separate stoppages of Lift No. 6 were brought to OTIS's notice between April and June 2002, while a further nine breakdowns of the same lift were recorded in July and August 2002 alone.

"OTIS, as the exclusive maintenance contractor under the Repair and Maintenance Contract, was directly and repeatedly notified of each of these failures," the Bench said.

Did manual release of the elevator brakes absolve OTIS of liability?

The Supreme Court rejected OTIS's submission that responsibility for the accident rested solely with MES because its personnel had manually released the brakes through the Brake Release Key.

"While the Technical Report may attribute cause of the accident to manual release of the brakes, this finding does not, in our view, absolve OTIS of liability, for various reasons as the said manual release is not a standalone incident," the Bench held.

Court pointed out that the contract required OTIS's own trained mechanic to be present at the site during fixed hours every day and to attend to complaints within a stipulated period.

However, OTIS produced no attendance register, duty chart, log book or other contemporaneous record to establish the presence, or otherwise, of its mechanic on the date of the accident.

More fundamentally, the Bench highlighted that the very occasion for anyone to manually operate the Brake Release Key arose because the lift, due to a persistent and unrectified electrical malfunction, had stopped mid-operation.

"This vulnerability also directly flows from OTIS's failure to rectify the defects of which it stood repeatedly informed," Court said.

The Bench further noted that stickers posted by OTIS inside the lift cautioning against interference with its mechanism could not substitute for the affirmative steps OTIS, as the comprehensive maintenance contractor, was required to take to train RAW and MES personnel in the correct rescue procedure to be followed in the event of a stoppage.

The NCDRC had correctly found that there was no evidence that OTIS had ever imparted such training, the Bench held.

Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the NCDRC's finding 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," the Bench said.

Court noted that OTIS was not a stranger to the defect that culminated in the accident. It was aware of the problem and 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," the Bench held.

The Bench declared that the apportionment of 70% liability to OTIS, 25% to MES and 5% to RAW properly reflected the differential degree of knowledge, control and responsibility each party bore for the accident and called for no interference by the Supreme Court.

Finding no infirmity in the NCDRC's order, Court directed the NCDRC to proceed with the execution petition filed by the officer's widow.

Case Title: M/s OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd Vs Rashmi Handa & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026