Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1828
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rashmi Handa – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4081 OF 2014|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2020
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Joint Tortfeasors - Apportionment of liability - Burden of identifying inter se liabilities should not rest on consumers; the court shall recognize the injury and assess compensation at first instance. (Paras 3, 34)
Facts of the case:
An employee died after being crushed by a malfunctioning elevator installed and maintained by the appellant. The NCDRC held the manufacturer and the maintenance departments jointly and severally liable. The appellant challenged the 70% apportionment of liability, claiming the accident resulted from manual operator error and external voltage fluctuations.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the NCDRC's decision, emphasizing that the manufacturer, as a maintenance contractor with unique technical knowledge, had a continuing duty to ensure safety. The failure to address recurring defects, despite early warnings regarding voltage instability, constituted clear deficiency of service. The court upheld the apportionment of liability, noting that the manual operation occurred only because of an underlying failure in the elevator's functionality.
Issues: Whether the manufacturer remains liable for damages despite a third-party human error when persistent technical defects were known and unrectified.
Ratio Decidendi: A company undertaking the comprehensive maintenance of a machine like an elevator owes a heightened duty of care; failing to rectify known defects makes it primarily liable even if a concurrent human error by end-users exacerbates the incident.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gopal Sankaranarayanan
For the Respondents: Saurabh Suman Sinha, Aishwarya Bhati
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal nature of elevators as common carriers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background and ncdrc findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. procedural history of connected appeals and execution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. submissions and contentions of the parties. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's analysis on apportionment of liability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. final orders and disposal of appeals. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
J U D G M E N T
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., (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 carrier, (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 Court, (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 an
