JUDGMENT :

1. Due to the limited availability of urban space, cities are growing vertically rather than horizontally. Elevators have become essential part of modern urban life. Strangers step into a small steel chamber, the doors close, and for a few moments they place their safety entirely in the hands of a mechanical system over which they have no control. In a crowded elevator, particularly at public spaces, the sense of confinement is real. The air feels heavy, personal space disappears, and the awareness of being suspended between floors naturally creates unease. The slightest jerk, an unexpected stop, or an unusual mechanical sound can quickly turn discomfort into fear, reminding every passenger that safety is not merely expected but is a fundamental assurance that every elevator must provide.

2. Given the ever-increasing usage of passenger elevators in the modern-day urbanising societies, recognising them as a mode of vertical transportation is imperative. In this transportation, passengers have no control over the conveyance and they have to entirely rely on automation or the operator as the case may be.¹[Such a public safety rationale is well expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Treadwell v. Whittier 80 Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266 (1889) way back in 1889 -

“The aged, the helpless, and the infirm daily using these elevators. The owners make profit by these elevators, or use them for the profit they bring to them. The cruelty from a careless use of such contrivances is likely to fall on the weakest of the community. The law, therefore, throws around such persons its protection, by requiring the highest care and diligence.”] It is not merely reasonable, but a legal necessity to impose a heightened duty to care, akin to that of common carriers in view of the intrinsic passenger vulnerability. An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier²[Michael D. Marrs, Carriers - Personal Injuries - Escalators and Elevators - Escalators are Not Common Carriers in Illinois, 45 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 111 (1968), Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79, 170 Eng. Rpt. 1088 (1809); Galena and Chicago Union Ry. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 Ill. 468 (1854) and Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430, 59 N. E. 953 (1901).] and the operator, in the wider sense must undertake greater responsibility to transport passengers from floor to floor and exit safely.

3. A contract of carriage is fundamentally between the carrier and the passenger. The carrier, in the context of user of an elevator at public places will take within its sweep the manufacturer, the operator and owner of the premises provisioning its services for the users. Therefore, from the perspective of a public law identifying and provisioning effective and efficacious restitutionary remedies, it is appropriate to hold the manufacturer, the operator and owner of the premises as the duty bearers and shall jointly and severally be liable to safeguard the user. The principle arising out of composite negligence is well articulated in many decisions of this Court³[Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (9) SCC 273.] entitling a plaintiff/claimant to sue joint tortfeasors and recover damages. The burden of identifying the inter se liabilities of joint tortfeasors should not rest on the shoulders of the consumers seeking compensation for injury caused due to transportation through an elevator. For immediate relief, it is necessary for the Court to recognise the injury and assess the compensation payable at the first instance. In so far as the apportionment of the liability of the joint tortfeasors, the Courts will examine the inter se contractual relationship and other circumstances before passing orders apportioning the liability and compensation.

4. M/s. OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (“OTIS”) is in appeal⁴[Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2014 before the Supreme Court of India against the order dated 21.01.2014 of NCDRC in OP 25 of 2005.] assailing the order passed by the Nation