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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more