Elevator manufacturers, operators and building owners jointly liable for user safety: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers and operators of elevators, along with the owners of the premises where they are installed, are jointly and severally liable for the safety of users [Otis Elevator Co Vs Rashmi Handa]

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said elevators must be treated as common carriers since passengers have no control over their movement and depend entirely on the automated system or operator.

“An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier and the operator, in the wider sense must undertake greater responsibility to transport passengers from floor to floor and exit safely,” the Court said in a judgment delivered on July 29.

The Court added that consumers seeking compensation should not bear the burden of identifying how liability must be divided among those responsible.

Courts can first award compensation and subsequently determine the liability of the parties based on their contracts and other circumstances, the Bench ruled.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited against a 2014 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The NCDRC had awarded ₹3 crores with interest to the family of a Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) officer who died in a lift accident in March 2003. It apportioned 70 per cent of the liability to Otis, 25 per cent to the Military Engineering Service (MES) and 5 per cent to RAW.

The lift had been installed by Otis at the RAW office complex at Lodhi Road in New Delhi. Its maintenance was also entrusted to Otis under a contract with MES.

On March 20, 2003, the lift stopped between the sixth and seventh floors while carrying 13 occupants. The staff manually opened the door and began rescuing the occupants. While the officer was partly inside the cabin, the lift suddenly moved downwards and crushed his neck.

A technical report attributed the accident to the manual release of the lift’s brakes from the machine room. Otis argued that the room was under the control of MES and responsibility for the accident rested with its personnel.

However, the Supreme Court said the immediate cause of the accident had to be distinguished from the circumstances that gave rise to the claim for deficiency in service.

The lift had repeatedly malfunctioned after its installation. Otis was informed of several breakdowns and had itself recommended installing a voltage stabiliser. Despite this, it neither ensured that the stabiliser was installed nor refused to certify the lift as safe.

The Court also found no evidence that Otis had trained RAW or MES personnel in the correct rescue procedure.

“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 Court held.

The Court reasoned that elevators have become an essential mode of vertical transportation as cities increasingly grow upwards. Like passengers using conventional transport, people entering a lift surrender control over their movement and safety to its automated system or operator.

This vulnerability was greater in elevators installed at public places, the Court said. The relationship is comparable to a contract of carriage under which the passenger must be safely transported from one floor to another, the Court opined.

Since users cannot independently guard against mechanical failures, the Court held that an elevator should be treated as a common carrier. This imposes a heightened duty of care on its manufacturer, operator and the owner of the premises.

The Bench upheld the apportionment of liability and directed the NCDRC to proceed with execution of the compensation order.

Otis was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with advocates Manu Nair, Manik Sachdeva, Saurabh Gupta, Zubia Rehan and Shourya Dasgupta from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

The respondent-consumers were represented by advocates Saurabh Suman Sinha, Sharad Bhansali, Jitendra Singh, Chitra Yashodhan Parande, Rishbha Shivhare, Gautam Prabhakar and Yash Bhatnagar, briefed by AP & J Chambers.

RAW and MES were represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati along with advocates Sarthak Karol, Akshat Agarwal, Shubham Mishra, Padmesh Mishra, Sachin Sharma, Shubham Prakash Mishra and SN Terdal, briefed by Arvind Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Maroria.

[Read Judgment]