Elevators as Common Carriers: Supreme Court Establishes Heightened Duty of Care for Manufacturers and Maintenance Contractors

Case Snapshot

Case Name: M/S OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. v. RASHMI HANDA & ORS.

Citation: 2026 INSC 756

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026

Area of Law: Consumer Law, Tort Law, Contract Law, Common Carrier Liability, Service Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed OTIS's appeal against the NCDRC's order holding it, along with RAW and MES, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the family of a deceased RAW officer who was crushed to death due to a malfunctioning elevator. The Court affirmed the NCDRC's apportionment of liability—70% on OTIS (the manufacturer and maintenance contractor), 25% on MES (the maintenance contract manager), and 5% on RAW (the premises occupier).

The Court held that elevators must be construed as common carriers, imposing a heightened duty of care on manufacturers, operators, and premises owners. A contract of carriage includes the manufacturer, operator, and premises owner as duty bearers who are jointly and severally liable to safeguard users. The burden of identifying inter se liabilities should not rest on consumers seeking compensation. The Court also allowed the complainant's execution petition, directing the NCDRC to proceed with execution in accordance with law.

Relevant Facts

The Incident: On March 20, 2003, a lift in the RAW office complex at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, carrying 13 occupants, abruptly stopped between the 6th and 7th floors. While rescuing the stranded occupants, the lift suddenly moved downward, crushing the deceased's neck between the cabin roof panel and the floor. The deceased was a senior RAW officer.

The Parties:

• OTIS: Manufacturer and maintenance contractor of the lift. Installed the lift in December 2001. Entered into a Maintenance and Repair Contract with MES on May 24, 2002.

• MES: The Military Engineering Service, responsible for the maintenance of the building. Contracted OTIS for lift maintenance.

• RAW: The premises occupier and consumer of the services.

Persistent Malfunctions: Between April and August 2002, OTIS was placed on repeated notice of the persistent malfunctioning of Lift No. 6:

• Telegram on April 3, 2002: Lift "off road," site engineer absent, "heavy criticism from users."

• Telegram on June 14, 2002: Lift off road again.

• Telegram on June 21, 2002: Another lift out of order, Lift No. 6 off road since June 20, 2002.

• Letter dated July 4, 2002: OTIS itself identified voltage fluctuation as the cause and recommended installation of a Voltage Stabiliser.

• Letter dated July 5, 2002: MES enclosed list of breakdowns for June 2002.

• Letter dated August 29, 2002: Consolidated list of breakdowns for July-August 2002, recording nine separate breakdowns of Lift No. 6.

• Letter dated February 17, 2003: MES complained of unresolved noise defect.

Technical Report: Prof. C.M. Bhatia from IIT Delhi submitted a report attributing the cause of the accident to manual release of the brakes through the Brake Release Key in the Machine Room, which had been left accessible. The report concluded that manual release was the "only cause of accident" and was due to "human error/factor beyond any element of doubt."

Proceedings: The deceased's widow and children filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC. The NCDRC allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,01,48,195/- with interest at 9% per annum. Liability was app

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.