Skip to main content

Record Rs 6cr payout for lift accident in Delhi

The Nation Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing a payout of a record Rs 5.90 crore compensation to the next of kin of a Delhi man who died in a lift mishap a decade ago has given a great boost to the cause of several consumers and lawyers fighting similar battles between the city's consumer forums.

Last week the national commission had directed OTIS, RAW and Military Engineering Services (MES) to pay the compensation to the family of Vipin Handa (46), Director with the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) who was crushed to death after the stalled lift that he was being helped out of starting moving downwards. On March 20, 2003 Handa was in the lift with 12 other officers after finishing a meeting at the Research Analysis Wing (RAW) office, Lodhi Road, Delhi when it stalled between the seventh and sixth floors. While one person was rescued just before Handa, the others got out of the lift when it opened on the sixth floor.

In 2005, his wife Rashmi Handa and two children Shristi and Kshitij filed the complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. A technical committee had concluded that the lift had stalled due to voltage fluctuation. Further it said that when Handa was being rescued somebody had entered the Machine Room on the 11th floor and released the lift brakes through the Brake Release Key. This prompted the lift to move downwards. "Releasing the brakes through the Brake Release Key is the only cause of accident and is due to the human error or factor beyond any element of doubt," the commission concluded. While OTIS was held responsible for installing the lift without a voltage stabilizer, RAW was held guilty for not insisting on the stabilizer, failing to ensure that the contract for maintaining the lift was being followed through and turning a blind eye to the complaints received against the manufacturer.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Record-Rs-6cr-payout-for-lift-accident-in-Delhi/articleshow/29460794.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more