Who will be responsible in case of death due to lift breaking or getting stuck in it? Supreme Court made everything clear

Today, in any mall, hospital, office or big residential society, lift has become a part of our everyday life. Every day millions of people use lifts without any fear. But, whenever the lift suddenly stops, slides down or there is a technical fault in it, a major accident can occur. In such cases, a question often arises in people’s mind that if someone dies or someone gets seriously injured due to lift malfunction, then who will be responsible for it?

The Supreme Court has answered this question in an important decision, which has further strengthened the rights of the common people. The Supreme Court has clearly said that the company that manufactures and maintains the lift cannot escape its responsibility. The court said that such companies have a legal responsibility to exercise extreme caution. Because lift is a machine in which the lives of thousands of people are involved every day.

‘The company cannot shirk its responsibility’

If the company does not investigate in time, correct the defect or does not follow safety rules and an accident occurs because of it, it can be held responsible. This decision of the court has come in the case related to the death of RAW officer Vipin Handa in a lift accident in 2003. The Court held that OTIS Elevator (India) Ltd. Can’t escape my responsibility. The court also said that the company was already aware of the problems in the lifts and necessary steps were not taken in time to ensure safety.

• The Supreme Court said that the responsibility of the company making and maintaining the lift will be fixed.
• Merely installing the machine is not enough, it is also the duty of the company to ensure its safety.
• If an accident occurs due to negligence, the company cannot avoid legal action and compensation.
• This decision is being considered a big example for lift companies and building management across the country.

In which case did this decision come?

On March 20, 2003, the meeting of senior officers ended in the RAW office located at CGO Complex, New Delhi. The officers were coming down from lift number 6. Meanwhile, the lift suddenly stopped between the sixth and seventh floors. A total of 13 people were present in the lift. Employees started manual rescue. One officer was taken out safely, but when the other officer, Vipin Handa, was being taken out, the lift suddenly slid down. In this accident, his head got badly stuck and he died on the spot. The remaining officers were later evacuated safely. His family fought for justice in this case. The case went on in different courts for many years and finally the Supreme Court gave its verdict.

What did the investigation reveal?

Many important things came to light in the technical investigation. According to the report, the lift concerned used to stop without any reason many times in the past also. The investigation also said that there was a problem of fluctuation in electricity voltage and necessary steps were not taken on time to remove it. The report also said that lift operators were not given adequate training on emergency rescue. Apart from this, questions also arose as to why the team of the maintenance company was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and whether the security arrangements were adequate.

What did OTIS argue?

The company said in the court that the accident did not happen due to its negligence. He claimed that his employees were not present at the spot at the time of the accident and the rescue work was done by other employees. The company also said that electrical problems and human error during rescue operations were the reasons for the accident. OTIS said that if its employees had waited, the accident probably could have been avoided. OTIS company told the court that it had already informed the Military Engineering Service (MES) about the problem of voltage fluctuations in the lift, hence it cannot be held completely responsible.

However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) admitted that OTIS had the biggest responsibility for the accident. The Commission fixed 70% responsibility on OTIS, 25% on MES and 5% on RAW. Also ordered to pay compensation of Rs 3.01 crore including interest to the victim’s family. Later the appeals of RAW and MES were rejected. After this, only the appeal of OTIS was heard in the Supreme Court, but the court did not even accept its arguments and upheld the decision of NCDRC.

What did the Supreme Court say in this matter?

The Supreme Court said that machines like lifts are directly related to the safety of people. Therefore, the responsibility of the companies that build and maintain them is much more than providing a normal service. The court said, ‘The court said that the biggest responsibility of the company maintaining the lift is the safety of the people. If the company was already aware of the defect, yet did not correct it in time or did not make necessary arrangements for the safety of the people, then it would be considered negligent.

What effect will the decision have on the common people?

This decision of the Supreme Court is important for all those people who daily use the lifts installed in malls, hospitals, hotels, government and private offices, housing societies and other buildings. After the court’s decision, the responsibility of the companies manufacturing and maintaining lifts as well as the building management will increase more than before. Now they will be expected to get the lifts checked regularly, repair them on time and not ignore any technical fault. If this is not followed and an accident occurs due to it, then legal action can be taken against the responsible party.

What can be done if a lift accident occurs?

If a lift malfunction causes injury or death to a person, the victim or his family has the right to take legal action. They can first lodge a complaint with the police. Apart from this, consumers can demand justice and compensation by filing a case in the commission or court. If the investigation proves that the accident occurred due to negligence or lack of maintenance, then the responsibility of both the lift maintenance company and the concerned building management can be fixed.