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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more