Elevators Are ‘Common Carriers’ Owing Heightened Duty of Care; Manufacturer, Operator and Premises Owner Can Be Jointly Liable for Passenger Safety; Cause of Accident and Cause of Action for Deficiency in Service Are Distinct: Supreme Court
Case Name: M/s Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 756
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Held: The Supreme Court held that an elevator is a mode of vertical transportation and must be construed as a common carrier, because passengers have no control over its operation and are wholly dependent upon the mechanical system or operator for safe carriage. Consequently, a heightened duty of care akin to that imposed on common carriers applies. In public places, the manufacturer, operator/maintenance contractor and owner of the premises are duty-bearers and may be held jointly and severally liable for passenger safety under principles of composite negligence. The consumer need not first determine the inter se liability of the joint tortfeasors before seeking compensation; apportionment may be worked out by the court on the basis of contractual obligations, knowledge, control and individual responsibility.
Summary: The case arose from a fatal elevator accident at the RAW office complex at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. OTIS had installed the lift in December 2001 and later entered into a comprehensive maintenance and repair contract with the Military Engineering Service (MES). On 20 March 2003, the lift carrying 13 officers stopped between the sixth and seventh floors. During rescue operations, while the deceased officer was partly inside and partly outside the cabin, the lift suddenly moved downward and crushed his neck, resulting in his death. His widow and children approached the NCDRC seeking compensation.
The NCDRC found OTIS, MES and RAW jointly and severally liable and awarded approximately ₹3.01 crore with interest, apportioning liability at 70% to OTIS, 25% to MES and 5% to RAW. OTIS argued before the Supreme Court that the technical investigation had identified manual release of the brake by use of the Brake Release Key as the immediate cause of the accident and that the machine room was under MES control. It therefore contended that principal liability should rest with MES.
The Supreme Court distinguished the immediate cause of the accident from the broader circumstances constituting deficiency in service. The record showed persistent malfunctioning of the same lift for months before the accident, numerous breakdowns repeatedly communicated to OTIS, and OTIS’s own recognition that voltage fluctuations required installation of a stabiliser for safe operation. Yet OTIS neither ensured installation of the recommended safeguard, declined to certify the lift as safe pending remedial action, nor adequately escalated the continuing safety problem. As manufacturer and comprehensive maintenance contractor, OTIS possessed superior technical knowledge and control over the lift’s safety mechanisms.
The Court held that manual release of the brakes by MES personnel did not absolve OTIS because the need for rescue itself arose from the lift’s persistent unresolved malfunction. OTIS also failed to produce required attendance and maintenance records and there was no evidence that it had trained RAW or MES personnel in proper emergency rescue procedures. MES nevertheless bore responsibility for leaving the machine room accessible and failing to maintain attendance records, while RAW had a more limited oversight responsibility. The Court therefore found the NCDRC’s 70:25:5 apportionment proportionate to the parties’ differing levels of technical knowledge, control and responsibility.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed OTIS’s Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2014 and upheld the NCDRC’s apportionment of liability 70% upon OTIS, 25% upon MES and 5% upon RAW. Since OTIS’s challenge was finally rejected, the Court also allowed Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 2020 filed in relation to execution and directed the NCDRC to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law.