The court's verdict arose from a 22-year-old fatal lift accident involving former diplomat Vipin Handa at the RAW headquarters in New Delhi.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd, a manufacturer as well as comprehensive maintenance contractor, responsible for the death of the RAW officer in a lift accident in March 2003. The top court upheld a 2014 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), placing liability on OTIS, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the Military Engineering Service (MES). The lift malfunction, which was caused by a fluctuation in the voltage remained unaddressed by the Elevator company for nearly 8 months.

'OTIS was not a stranger to the defect,' says Supreme Court

'A party that undertakes the comprehensive maintenance of a machine, which is in the nature of a vehicle, owes a heightened duty of care towards its users. OTIS was not a stranger to the defect that culminated in the accident. It was cognizant of the problem, and it had itself proposed the remedy. Having done so, its failure to ensure that the remedy was implemented, or, alternatively, to render the lift safe by other means pending its installation constitutes deficiency of service.', the Court said, according to a report by Live Law.

SC upheld compensation of Rs 3.01 crore for Handa's family

The Supreme Court dismissed OTIS's appeal and affirmed the NCDRC's direction awarding Rs 3,01,48,195 as compensation to the Handa family, along with 9 per cent interest per annum from March 20, 2003, the date of the accident, rising to 12 per cent in case of default beyond 90 days.

The consumer commission had held OTIS responsible, fixing liability at 70% on the company, 25% on MES, and 5% on RAW. The apex court also ordered the NCDRC to proceed with execution of the award, closing a legal dispute that spanned years.

'An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier'

In the verdict prioritising public safety, Justice Narasimha said that elevators have become an indispensable part of urban life. 'An elevator must be construed and deemed to be a common carrier,' the Court said, adding that it is a 'legal necessity to impose a heightened duty to care' as passengers entirely entrust their safety to the system.

The Bench further stated that under public law, makers, operators and owners of premises housing elevators should all be treated as duty bearers. They are jointly liable to compensate victims.

During the hearing, OTIS said that the accident occurred due to 'human error' during the rescue operation. Earlier, the company said it had advised installing a stabilizer to address the issues related to voltage fluctuations. However, this recommendation was not implemented.

SC said the accident can't be seen only in terms of its immediate cause. The records indicate that the elevator was experiencing malfunctions for a long time, and OTIS remained fully aware of it. Despite this, it didn't take the necessary safety measures and did not declare the elevator unsafe. The Court held that the MES failed to supervise maintenance work, and the govt building's owner did not take action.