Improper care of elevators causing death of a person

Improper care of elevators causing death of a person

(is it service under consumer protection act)

National Commission held ‘YES’ inspite of the fact no consideration was paid by the complainant for any services. This is a case titled P.G.PAI v/s Care Elevators ENGG. Co. Ltd &others wherein National Commission went into details of each party’s role and responsibility towards public at large. Also the interpretation of section 2 (o) of consumer protection act which is inclusive and not exhaustive as held by hon’ble supreme court in number of judgments. ‘Services’ means services of any description which is available to potential users as facilities in connection with other number of services to consumers such as banking ,education,insurance etc. etc.In this judgment,‘includes’word had been the target for the court to elaborate.

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd had office in Bhagwati house in Mumbai having taken on lease .The building was being managed by Bhagwati house.The lifts were installed by OTIS Elevator Company  and upkeep of lifts was assigned to Care Elevators and ENGG. Co. Ltd.

The said lift went out of order on 10.5.2015 and a report in this regard was lodged.with OP-1,Care Elevators.at 10 am. But roshan Pai entered the lift without knowing about fault,it abruptly moved without closing doors .He got stuckin the lift with his neck and head in side the lift and rest of the body outside the lift. He was declared dead later.

The question here was –!)Why there was no warning about elevator out of order.

!!)Why inbuilt locking system did not work which prevents lifts to start unless doors are closed

TRIG Security agency ,OP-2 was responsible for putting up notice of warning which was not done in this case and it allowed to happen this incident . Further this fact was also established during the course of proceedings that mechanics of the security agency had also disabled inbuilt locking system of the lift  whereas the system was very much there and properly installed by OTIS ,OP-4 .hence no negligence on the par of OTIS found.It was checked in details the provisions of clause 18 of Indian Standards of ElectricTraction Lifts which requiresthat every lending door,shutter,or gate shall be equipped with electro-mechanic lock which shall prevent lift from moving while lending door,shutter or gate is open . there was no allegation against OP-4 OTIS for not providing this system

On the other hand ,OP-1 &OP-2 ,operating agency and security agency were found at fault.and deficient in services.

Complainat in this case was father of deceased Rohan Pai who had not paid for the services of maintenance of the lift but some one was paying for the services and it was not free of cost. Providing lift in a multi-story building would amount to providing services to the visitors,employees and permitted persons to the building.Visitors are also approved to enter the building by security agency and Kingfisher in whos offices he tends to visit .Hence all the agencies permit the visitor to avail the services.It is considered availing services fwith permission from a person who paid for the services.

Lift is a necessary element for a multi storey building and providing this service as facility is otherwise also an essential facility without which neither the building will get completion certificate nor it would become fit for occupation for effective use.

Supreme court in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation V Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd 111(2009)3 SCC 240 resort to the word includes which give extensive and enlarged meaning to such expression.

Roshan Pai’s father filed case against all the four respondents above said and claimed compensation for mental agony he had undergone due to the death of his young son. He alleged that all the four , Kingfisher Airlines Ltd , owner of Bhagwati house in Mumbai who had taken lease of the building ,OTIS Elevator Company  who installed the lift and Care Elevators and ENGG. Co. Ltd.who were responsible for upkeep of lifts were liable to pay him compensation .

Once the legal question was decided in his favour that there was a deficiency in services inspite of the fact direct consideration was not paid by the visitot to the Kingfisher office situated in Bhagwati building ,next issue was to set the liability . In this context ,Kingfisher office had no role but to pay for upkeep of lift alongwith all other occupants of the building,hence was not guilty of any fault . However visitor to his office was with his implied permission and hence was a potential consumer.

OTIS while installing the lift had taken care of all the norms and had kept the provision of electro-mechanic lock under   clause 18 of Indian Standards of ElectricTraction Lifts which requires that every lending door,shutter,or gate shall be equipped with electro-mechanic lock which shall prevent lift from moving while lending door,shutter or gate is open . There was no allegation against OP-4 OTIS for not providing this system.

OP-1 &OP-2 ,operating agency and security agency were found at fault.and deficient in services.OP-1 had not checked at any point of time that electro mechanic lock is not working,lift is out of order and in such situation incident occure due to non functioning of machenic lock . Direct responsibility was set against OP-1 ,the operating agency . Further ,security agency was found guilty on two counts –first their security person had disable the electro –mechanic system which caused a loss of life . Also it was their duty to put warning about the disorder of lift which could prevent visitors to use the lift

Both were equaliy held liable for making payment towards compensation claimed by the father of Roshan Pai .

————————————————————————————————–

Dr Prem Lata

Consumerism

Comments are closed.