IMPORTANT POINT
Proper warning must be displayed by service provider while repairing Lift.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Opposite Party No. 3 Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. had office in Bhagwati House, Off. Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Mumbai, which it had taken on Lease and Licence from Bhagwati Associates Pvt. Limited. The aforesaid building was being managed by Bhagwati House which is stated to be a condominium of the owners of the aforesaid building. The lifts in the aforesaid building were installed by OP-4, OTIS Elevator Company (I) Ltd. and at the relevant time, the upkeep and maintenance of the said lifts was the responsibility of OP-1, Care Elevators & Engg. Co. Pvt. Limited, by virtue of the agreement it had with the above-referred consortium. On 10.05.2005, the lift installed in the rear wing of the aforesaid building got out of order and a report in this regard was lodged with OP-1 at about 10 AM. When late Shri Rohan Pai entered the aforesaid lift, it abruptly moved up, even though its doors were open. As a result, he got stuck in the lift with his neck and head inside and the remaining part of his body outside the lift / elevator. He was rescued from there and taken to hospital where he was declared dead.

2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint is that the safety door switch in the aforesaid lift were electro mechanical type, with inbuilt door locking system on each floor for both the doors, and the operating of the elevator is such that the lift / elevator would not operate even if a single door of any floor was left open. Despite that, the elevator moved up even when the door of the second floor was open, the same having been opened by the deceased. It appears to the complainant that the maintenance staff of OP-1 who were carrying out maintenance work of the aforesaid elevator had disabled the inbuilt locking system thereby enabling the movement of the elevator in spite door being opened, as a result of which the aforesaid incident happened. This is also the case of the complainant that OP-1 & 2 failed in their duty to put-up a notice in some conspicuous place, at all levels, warning against use of the elevators, since they were under repairs / maintenance and any use during repair / maintenance could result into a mishap. The complainant thus, alleges negligence on the part of the OP-1 & 2 in rendering service to the users of the lift.

The complainant also claims OP-3 to be negligent and deficient in rendering service by not ensuring safety and security of its employees and exposing them to risk. OP-4 has been arrayed as a party to the complaint on account of its having manufactured and installed the aforesaid lift whereas OP-5 has been arrayed on the ground that it was his duty to ensure proper maintenance / functioning of the lifts. The complainant, therefore, has claimed a sum of Rs.4,79,28,000/- as compensation from OP-1 to 5 besides a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the mental stress and agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. The compensation of Rs.4,79,28,000/- has been claimed on the premise that the deceased would have earned Rs.35,000/- per month from 2005 to 2010, Rs.53,500/- per month from 2011 to 2015, Rs.80,300/- per month from 2016 to 2020, Rs.1,20,000/- per month from 2021 to 2025, Rs.1,50,000/- per month from 2026 to 2030 and Rs.1,80,000/- per month from 2031 to 2040.

3. The complaint has been resisted by the OPs on several grounds. The preliminary objection taken by them is that no services were being rendered by them to the deceased and he was not their consumer. All of them have also alleged that the unfortunate mishap cannot be attributed to any negligence on their part. It is claimed by OP-2 that it being a condominium of owners of the building, its role was limited to collect property tax, appoint security agents and award contract for maintenance of the lift, etc. Accordingly, they had awarded the maintenance of the lift to OP-1 and security services to an agency namely, TRIG Security Company. It is alleged in the reply of OP-2 that on complaint b