Who's Liable When A Lift Fails? Supreme Court Sets Record Straight In Landmark Ruling
Who's Liable When A Lift Fails? Supreme Court Sets Record Straight In Landmark Ruling Published By, Last Updated: July 30, 2026, 13:22 IST The Supreme
Who's Liable When A Lift Fails? Supreme Court Sets Record Straight In Landmark Ruling Published By, Last Updated: July 30, 2026, 13:22 IST The Supreme Court has held the maintenance agency, manufacturers, and building owners responsible for the lift accident that proved fatal for a RAW agent years ago. Rapid Read AI Generated) In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that in lift-related accidents, responsibility will not rest on one entity alone but will be shared between the manufacturer, the maintenance agency and the building owner. The apex court also described elevators as “common carriers", similar to public transport. The court emphasised that alongside the building owner, the maintenance agency and manufacturer also carry a great duty of care. It noted that passengers, once inside a lift, have no control over the system and fully rely on it for their safety. The verdict came from a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, which rejected an appeal filed by Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd and upheld a 2014 decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
What Prompted This? The case stems from a 2003 accident at the R&AW headquarters, in which a diplomat Vipin Handa lost his life. Upholding the NCDRC’s ruling, the top court maintained compensation of Rs 3.01 crore for his family, along with 9 percent annual interest from the date of the incident, and 12 percent if the amount is not paid within 90 days. It also asked the NCDRC to ensure compliance. The accident had happened due to fluctuation in the voltage which had trapped some people, including Handa in the lift. The fluctuation issues had gone unaddressed for about eight months, according to a report by the LiveLaw. Detailing the incident, the court noted that the lift had stalled between floors. During the rescue, it suddenly moved, trapping Handa fatally while others were rescued. Highlighting changing urban realities, the court observed that with cities expanding vertically, elevators have become indispensable.
It pointed out that people step into confined spaces, often experiencing discomfort or anxiety, making reliability and safety even more crucial. The court stressed that even minor disruptions, like jerks or unusual sounds, can alarm passengers. This reinforces that safety must be treated as a guaranteed standard, not just an expectation, the court said. Who Is Liable? Importantly, it clarified that victims are not required to untangle who was at fault. They can seek full compensation from any one of the responsible parties, who can later divide liability among themselves. While Otis blamed human error and cited prior advice about installing a stabiliser, the court found that the lift had a known history of faults. Despite being aware, the company neither fixed the issues adequately nor declared the system unsafe. The judgment also held the Military Engineering Services accountable for poor oversight and criticised the concerned government department for ignoring repeated complaints.
The BriefWire