More than two decades after a senior Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) officer lost his life in a lift accident at the agency’s New Delhi headquarters, the Supreme Court has upheld the liability of OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd., ruling that manufacturers and maintenance contractors of elevators bear an enhanced responsibility towards public safety.
A Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the company’s appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), holding that OTIS could not escape responsibility for the malfunction that led to the officer’s death in 2003.
The Court observed that elevators are no longer mere mechanical installations but an indispensable part of modern urban infrastructure, where passengers entrust their safety entirely to technology and maintenance systems.
“An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier,” the Bench said, emphasizing that users exercise no control over the operation of lifts and are completely dependent on those responsible for their design, upkeep and safety.
Court Finds OTIS Aware of the Defect
The case arose from the death of a RAW officer who was crushed after a lift malfunction allegedly triggered by voltage fluctuations. OTIS argued that the problem had already been brought to the attention of the Military Engineering Service (MES), which was responsible for certain maintenance functions.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the company had known about the recurring issue for nearly eight months before the accident. Records showed that OTIS itself had recommended the installation of a Service Line Voltage Corrector Stabiliser to ensure the safe functioning of the elevator.
According to the Bench, once the company identified the cause and proposed a remedy, it was obligated either to ensure that the corrective measure was implemented or to prevent the elevator from being used until safety concerns were addressed.
The judges noted that despite repeated breakdowns and continuing voltage-related problems, the lift remained operational and continued to transport senior government officials on a daily basis.
The Court remarked that OTIS could have refused to certify the lift as safe or insisted that it remain out of service until the stabiliser was installed. Instead, no effective safeguards were put in place.
Heightened Duty of Care
The judgment underlined that entities entrusted with comprehensive maintenance of machines that function as modes of transport owe a greater duty of care to users.
The Bench held that OTIS was not an outsider unaware of the defect. It had knowledge of the problem, had suggested the solution and yet failed to ensure that necessary steps were taken.
Its inaction, the Court said, amounted to a deficiency in service.
The Supreme Court further observed that, from a public law perspective, manufacturers, operators and owners of premises should all be regarded as duty bearers and held jointly responsible for compensating victims of such accidents.
Consumers, the Court said, should not be forced to navigate complex disputes over who among several parties bears ultimate responsibility before receiving compensation.
Compensation Award Remains Intact
The NCDRC had earlier apportioned liability among the parties, holding OTIS responsible for 70 percent of the compensation, MES for 25 percent and RAW for the remaining 5 percent.
Compensation of ₹3.01 crore, along with interest, was awarded to the deceased officer’s family.
Appeals filed by RAW and MES had already been dismissed earlier. With the Supreme Court now rejecting OTIS’s challenge, the compensation order stands confirmed.
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the elevator industry, reinforcing the principle that companies entrusted with maintaining public-facing infrastructure cannot avoid accountability when known safety risks are left unresolved.
