Supreme Court Declares Elevators ‘Common Carriers’, Holds OTIS Primarily Liable in Fatal Lift Accident

July 30, 2026 : The Supreme Court has held that elevators must be treated as “common carriers,” placing a heightened duty of care on manufacturers, maintenance contractors and building owners to ensure the safety of passengers. In a significant ruling arising from a fatal lift accident at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) headquarters in New Delhi, the Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) finding that OTIS Elevator Company bore the primary responsibility for the tragedy.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed OTIS’ appeal against the NCDRC’s order, which had held OTIS, the Military Engineering Service (MES) and RAW jointly liable for the death of a senior officer who was fatally crushed during a rescue operation after a lift malfunctioned.

The Court also affirmed the NCDRC’s apportionment of liability, fixing 70 per cent responsibility on OTIS, 25 per cent on MES and 5 per cent on RAW.

Recognising the critical role of elevators in modern urban life, the Bench observed that passengers have no control over the functioning of a lift and are entirely dependent on its safety mechanisms. For this reason, the Court ruled that elevators should be treated on par with common carriers, which are legally required to exercise a higher standard of care toward those they transport.

The Bench further clarified that the concept of a “carrier” in the context of elevators extends beyond the operator. It includes the manufacturer, the maintenance agency and the owner of the premises where the elevator is installed, all of whom share a collective responsibility to ensure passenger safety.

The case stemmed from a 2002 accident at the RAW office complex on Lodhi Road in New Delhi. A lift carrying 13 senior officers became stuck between floors. During the rescue operation, one officer had partially stepped out of the elevator when it suddenly moved downward, fatally crushing him.

Following the incident, the deceased officer’s widow and children approached the NCDRC seeking compensation. The Commission awarded the family ₹3.01 crore along with interest and held OTIS, MES and RAW jointly liable for the fatal accident.

Before the Supreme Court, OTIS argued that the accident occurred because MES personnel manually released the lift’s brake mechanism during the rescue operation. The company also contended that it had repeatedly warned the authorities about voltage fluctuations affecting the lift and had recommended the installation of a voltage stabiliser.

Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the immediate cause of the accident could not be viewed in isolation from the recurring technical defects that had repeatedly been brought to OTIS’ attention. The Bench observed that OTIS, as both the manufacturer and the comprehensive maintenance contractor, possessed exclusive technical expertise and was fully aware of the lift’s persistent electrical problems.

The Court noted that although OTIS had identified voltage fluctuations as a recurring issue and recommended installing a stabiliser, it failed to ensure that the recommendation was implemented or to prevent the lift from remaining in operation until it was rendered safe. The Bench held that this amounted to a clear deficiency in service.

The Court also observed that warning stickers placed inside the lift could not substitute for proper training of personnel responsible for emergency rescue operations. While RAW retained limited supervisory responsibility and MES was found to have committed lapses in maintenance and rescue management, the Court concluded that OTIS bore the principal responsibility for the fatal accident.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed OTIS’ appeal and also allowed the appeal filed by the deceased officer’s widow challenging the NCDRC’s refusal to proceed with the execution of the compensation award. The Court directed the Commission to continue the execution proceedings in accordance with law.