M/S Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors.
Background
A lift installed and maintained by OTIS Elevator Company in a government (RAW) office building in Delhi malfunctioned repeatedly in the months before an officer was crushed to death in 2002 while it was being manually operated during a rescue after a breakdown. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had found OTIS, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW, the building occupier), and the Military Engineering Service (MES, which had contracted for the lift's maintenance with OTIS) jointly and severally liable, apportioning 70% liability to OTIS, 25% to MES, and 5% to RAW. OTIS appealed to the Supreme Court against this finding, while the deceased's widow, Rashmi Handa, filed a connected appeal because execution of the compensation award had been stayed pending the outcome of OTIS's appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that elevators carrying the public should be treated as akin to common carriers, imposing a heightened duty of care on manufacturers, maintenance contractors, and premises owners, who can be held jointly and severally liable so that injured consumers are not burdened with untangling inter se liability themselves. On the facts, the Court found that OTIS had received repeated complaints about the same lift's malfunctions for months, had itself identified a voltage-stabiliser fix as necessary but never ensured it was installed, could not produce records showing its mechanic was present as contractually required, and never trained building staff in safe rescue procedures, all of which showed OTIS was the party principally responsible, notwithstanding that the immediate trigger was a manual brake release by MES personnel during the rescue. The Court upheld the NCDRC's liability apportionment (70% OTIS, 25% MES, 5% RAW) as properly reflecting each party's differential knowledge, control and responsibility, dismissed OTIS's appeal, and allowed the widow's connected appeal directing the NCDRC to proceed with execution of the compensation award.
Lesson Learnt
A company that manufactures and comprehensively maintains equipment used by the public, like an elevator, owes an especially high duty of care, and cannot escape liability for a fatal malfunction by pointing to someone else's actions during an emergency if it knew of the underlying defect, proposed a fix, and never ensured it was carried out.