Liability of the Managing Committee for Lift Accidents and Damage

 

Why the Committee — Not Just the Society — Gets Named

BNS S.106 (and its predecessor, IPC S.304A) presupposes an act by “persons” — a category that includes a housing society as a juristic person. But a society cannot itself be arrested or produced before a magistrate, so the police invariably name the natural persons managing it on its behalf: ordinarily, the Chairman and the Secretary.

This is not an accident of investigation. Model Bye-law 156 makes it the Committee’s responsibility to maintain the society’s property, including its lifts, in good condition at all times. Bye-law 157 goes further: on receiving any member’s complaint about maintenance, the Secretary must inspect and report to the Committee, which then decides what repairs are necessary. A complaint that sits unanswered, or an inspection report that the Committee never acted upon, is precisely the paper trail that converts an “accident” into a chargeable act of negligence.

Separately, Section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the ‘MCS Act’) makes every committee member jointly and severally responsible for the Committee’s decisions and for any acts or omissions detrimental to the society — a civil exposure that exists whether or not a criminal case is ever registered.

1. Statutory Duty to Maintain Model Bye-laws 156 and 157 place the duty to maintain society property — including lifts — squarely on the Committee. The Secretary must inspect on receiving a complaint and report to the Committee, which then decides on repairs. A skipped inspection or an unactioned report is the first fact a prosecutor or plaintiff reaches for.	2. Criminal Negligence Causing Death Where a lift accident results in death, BNS S.106 (formerly IPC S.304A) applies. It presupposes a rash or negligent act — and a housing society, as a juristic person, can commit such an act through the negligence of those managing it.
3. Endangering Life Without Death A near-miss or non-fatal injury does not spare the Committee. BNS S.125(a) and S.125(b) (formerly IPC S.336 and S.337) criminalise acts that endanger life or cause hurt through such endangerment, even where no death occurs.	4. Common Intention / Joint Liability BNS S.3(5) (formerly IPC S.34) is almost always invoked alongside the substantive charge. Where the Chairman, Secretary, security staff and the lift contractor each contributed to the same lapse, each is treated as if they had committed the whole act.
5. Civil Liability of the Committee Section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 makes committee members jointly and severally responsible for all decisions and for all acts and omissions detrimental to the society’s interest — a civil exposure that runs independent of any criminal case.	6. Lift Act Owner Obligations The Maharashtra Lifts, Escalators and Moving Walks Act, 2017 casts the ’owner’ (which includes the society) with continuing duties: a valid licence, periodical inspection, third-party insurance, an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with an approved contractor, and a maintained log book.

How a Complaint Becomes a Criminal Case

The following sequence, drawn from a recently reported Pune-district matter, illustrates how the law actually plays out on the ground.

1  6 December 2025 — At Nisarga Housing Society, Talegaon Dabhade, the lift develops a technical fault and gets stuck between the sixth and seventh floors.

2  Same day — The lift’s cable snaps and it plunges from the seventh floor. Resident Dinesh Surange (33), trapped inside, is critically injured while other residents attempt a rescue.

3  7 December 2025 — Surange dies during treatment for his injuries.

4  28 March 2026 — On a complaint filed by the victim’s brother, the Talegaon Dabhade police register an FIR — nearly four months after the death.

5  Investigation — Eleven persons are named, including the society’s chairman, secretary, and individuals responsible for lift maintenance.

6  Charges invoked — Provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita covering causing death by negligence and acts endangering life are invoked; investigation continues.

The pattern is not new, and it does not require a fatality to trigger. In March 2024, a former IPS officer’s son and grandson were trapped for roughly 45 minutes in a malfunctioning lift at a Kandivali (Mumbai) society after residents say it had been faulty for two months. An FIR followed against the chairman, secretary, security guard and the lift company’s executive under IPC S.287 (negligent conduct with respect to machinery), S.336, S.337 and S.34. As far back as 2013, in Nalasopara, a ten-year-old boy was crushed when a lift plunged as he was entering it; the society’s chairman and secretary were booked under IPC S.304A read with S.34. The provisions have since been renumbered under the BNS, but the exposure to the Committee has not changed.

Stakeholder Takeaway

Role	Legal Exposure	What They Should Do
Chairman / Secretary	Named personally in FIRs (BNS S.106 / S.125 with S.3(5)); face arrest, and personal civil liability under S.73(1AB) of the MCS Act.	Ensure every complaint is logged, inspected and answered in writing; keep the Lift Compliance File (see Advocate’s Tip) current at all times.
Ordinary Committee Member	Jointly and severally liable for Committee decisions and omissions under S.73(1AB), even without personal involvement in the incident.	Insist on lift maintenance being a standing agenda item at every Committee meeting; record dissent in minutes if repairs are deferred.
Flat Owner / Resident	Generally not liable, but is the person entitled to claim — civilly for damages, or via a consumer complaint for deficiency in service.	Report lift faults in writing (email/register), preserve that written trail — it is exactly what proves the Committee’s negligence.
Lift Maintenance Contractor	Co-accused alongside the Committee in almost every reported case; may also face licence suspension under the 2017 Act.	Maintain the AMC service register and respond to every complaint within contractual timelines, with dated proof of action.

Checklist: Reducing the Committee’s Exposure

Confirm the lift’s licence under the Maharashtra Lifts, Escalators and Moving Walks Act, 2017 is current, and diarise its renewal well before expiry.

Sign the AMC only with an approved contractor holding a valid licence from the Chief Electrical Inspector.

Ensure periodical inspection takes place at least once a year, and retain the certificate.

Keep third-party insurance for the lift in force at all times.

Maintain the statutory log book, recording every breakdown and accident, however minor.

Respond in writing to every member complaint under Bye-law 157, and record the Committee’s decision in the minutes.

After any accident, do not resume use of the lift without the written permission of the Electrical Inspector (Lifts).

Plan for replacement at 20 years of installation, or earlier if the Electrical Inspector so directs.

CAUTION

An FIR does not need to follow immediately. In the Talegaon Dabhade matter, the resident died on 7 December 2025 and the FIR was registered only on 28 March 2026 — nearly four months later, on the family’s complaint. A quiet period is not closure; it is often the investigation forming. Equally, the absence of a death is no shield: the Kandivali (Mumbai) case shows that a lift-trapping incident without fatality still drew an FIR under BNS’s predecessor provisions on endangering life. A documented history of complaints ignored — as in that case, where residents said the lift had been faulty for two months — is treated as the clearest evidence of negligence.

The Civil Side: Compensation Independent of Any FIR

Criminal prosecution and civil liability run on separate tracks. Even where no FIR is registered, or where an accused is acquitted, an injured resident or the family of a deceased resident can pursue the Committee civilly — either through an ordinary suit for damages in negligence, or through a consumer complaint for deficiency in service, since a society is a service-provider to its members for common amenities such as lifts.

On quantum, courts have tightened the standard of proof. On 6 February 2026, in reducing a compensation award from Rs. 2 crore to Rs. 25 lakh in an unrelated deficiency-of-service matter, the Supreme Court held that damages cannot be awarded on presumption or on the complainant’s “mere asking,” and that a claim running into crores requires trustworthy, reliable evidence. The same standard would apply to a lift-accident compensation claim: a Committee facing a civil claim should expect the quantum to be tested against actual, provable loss, not assumed figures — and a claimant should be prepared to lead that evidence rather than rely on the scale of the tragedy alone.

ADVOCATE’S TIP

Maintain a single ‘Lift Compliance File’ for every lift in the society: the current licence and its renewal date, the AMC with the approved contractor, the last three periodical inspection certificates, the log book, the third-party insurance policy, and a dated record of every member complaint with the Committee’s written response. In nearly every reported prosecution or civil claim, this file — or its absence — is what decides whether liability actually sticks to the Committee.