New Delhi: In a significant verdict that strengthens consumer rights, the Supreme Court has declared that passenger elevators should be treated as common carriers and that the manufacturer, maintenance operator and owner of the premises where the lift is installed are jointly liable for any mishap inside it.
The judgement opens a window for those who get injured or die due to technical glitches in the operation of a lift to demand joint compensation from such parties. The apportionment of liability would be determined on the basis of who is primarily responsible for the breakdown or fault that arises in the lift.
Delivered by a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, the order came on an appeal filed by OTIS, a lift manufacturer, challenging a 2014 judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that imposed maximum liability on the company for a mishap in New Delhi in 2003 that led to the death of a serving Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) officer. The lift was installed at the agency headquarters in the Capital.
The fatal accident took place on 20 March, 2003, when a lift carrying 13 senior officers, including victim Vipin Handa, got stuck between the 6th and 7th floors of the building. During the rescue operation, Handa, who was halfway out, the lift suddenly moved downward and crushed him, causing his death.
The family had approached the NCDRC in 2005 seeking compensation of Rs 1.89 crore. In its 2014 ruling, the consumer forum found there was deficiency in service and held OTIS primarily responsible for the accident.
It also held that both R&AW and Military Engineering Services (MES) had failed to comply with the maintenance contract and safety recommendations. However, the share of their responsibility was limited as compared to OTIS.
While announcing an award of Rs 3.01 crore, the commission ordered OTIS to bear 70 per cent of the liability, while asking MES to pay 25 per cent of the compensation amount and the R&AW 5 per cent.
Earlier, the SC had dismissed R&AW and MES’s appeal. While deciding OTIS’ matter, it laid down certain important principles, refusing to absolve the company of its 70 per cent liability.
The court meticulously studied the sequence of events to hold that OTIS was negligent, because despite recognising the frequent breakdowns that started within months of the lift’s installation, the company turned a blind eye towards the technical faults. It had also issued a safety certificate for the lift’s operation.
On the legal principle of joint liability, the court said an elevator is akin to common carriers such as buses, trains or aircraft. And, since passengers surrender complete control of their safety once they enter such a space, those responsible for its design, manufacturing, maintenance and operation are equally responsible to safeguard the user.
The bench said consumers cannot be expected to ascertain the liabilities of multiple entities before obtaining compensation and should be entitled to recover damages from any of the joint operators.
Since use of elevators is growing owing to cities growing vertically, they have become an indispensable part of urban life, making passengers’ safety “not merely expected, but a fundamental assurance that every elevator must provide”, the court noted.
It rejected OTIS’ argument that the responsibility rested on the lift owner and said since negligence is composite, multiple parties owe a legal duty to users. This allows victims to recover compensation without deciphering the contractual relationships before asking for compensation.
The judgement imposes a heightened care on lift manufacturers and maintenance contractors, as it recognises elevators as a form of vertical transportation.
OTIS’s second argument that the accident had occurred due to a human error because the maintenance operator had manually released the brake, was also rejected.
The bench distinguished between immediate cause of the accident and underlying cause of the incident. It concluded that the brake had to be released manually only because the longstanding defects in the lift were unresolved, holding OTIS responsible for failing to address them.
OTIS’ arguments that MES had ignored its recommendation to install a voltage stabiliser and its mechanic was not required to be present at the site too was rejected.
The court said evidence showed that the lift was repeatedly breaking down within four months of installation. OTIS had received several letters and communication requesting its urgent repairs and that the company had acknowledged the same, as it had suggested installation of a voltage stabiliser.
But after giving this advice, OTIS never followed up with either the R&AW or MES and did not refuse to certify the lift’s safety, due to which its operation continued.
This amounted to breach of its maintenance contract that required it to maintain the lift safely, inspect it regularly, keep attendance registers, maintain complaint records and deploy qualified mechanics.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Delhi elderly have a lift problem. And they are fighting neighbours in RWA groups, courts