Common Areas, Lifts and Safety Defects in New Society: Who Is Liable?

Why This Question Keeps Coming Up in New Societies

You moved into your new flat eighteen months ago. The brochure showed smiling families using a sparkling lift, a fire-safe lobby, paved walkways and a clean clubhouse. Then real life happened. The lift in B-Wing has been jammed twice this month. A senior citizen got stuck inside for forty minutes. Fire extinguishers in the corridor are empty. The intercom does not work. The lobby tiles are cracking. The builder says he has "handed over to the RWA" and is no longer responsible. The RWA says the construction was defective from day one and the builder should fix it. The lift maintenance company blames the building's electrical wiring. Meanwhile, you are paying maintenance every month and walking past a yellow "Out of Order" sign every morning.

Who is actually liable here? The honest answer is — more than one person can be, and the law lets you go after each of them on different grounds. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CP Act) gives flat buyers and society residents two strong tools — deficiency in service under Section 2(11), and product liability for safety defects under Sections 82 to 87. This article explains both, in plain English, with the kind of facts from real cases that a District or State Consumer Commission has actually accepted.

What Counts as a "Common Area" — and Why It Matters

In every builder-buyer agreement, the price you paid includes not just the four walls of your flat but a share in the common areas — lifts, lobby, staircases, generator, fire-fighting system, water tanks, parking, walkways, club facilities, garden. These are not "extras". They were promised in the brochure and the agreement, and you paid for them. So when any of these fail, it is not a free favour gone wrong — it is a service or product that you paid for and did not get.

Consumer commissions have repeatedly held that non-provision or defective provision of these common features is "deficiency in service" under the CP Act. In one National Commission case, an allottee complained that the lift promised in the agreement was simply never installed, and that the brochure had promised glass capsule lifts that never appeared. The Commission treated this as misrepresentation plus deficiency, even though the builder argued that other flat-buyers had not paid their share for the lift. The reasoning was simple — once the lift was a promised feature in the agreement, the builder could not later use the excuse of someone else's default to deprive you of it.

If your builder is also denying possession of other common features that were promised, the principle is the same. Promised features are part of the consideration. Non-delivery is deficiency.

Lift Accidents — The Clearest Cases of Liability

Lifts are where the law gets sharp. They are the single most dangerous common feature in a residential society, and Indian consumer courts have not been gentle with builders, lift companies or maintenance contractors when somebody gets hurt or worse.

In Rashmi Handa v OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (2014), the National Commission was looking at a case where a lift kept breaking down because there was no voltage stabiliser, even though an expert had said one was compulsory for smooth functioning. The lift maintenance company had not maintained an Attendance Register — there was no record of any engineer actually coming to service the lift. The Commission called the case an exposure of "sloth and callousness" and awarded over Rs 3 crore in compensation. The lift installer carried the bulk of the liability; the maintenance contractor carried 25%; the rest was shared. The deceased was treated as a consumer of the lift service.

In another case, P.G. Pai v Care Elevators Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2015), a person died because a lift moved upward with its door still open at one floor. The body got stuck between the lift floor and the wall. The lift had originally been installed with a safety mechanism preventing it from moving when any floor's door was open. But the maintenance company and the building management had failed to keep that mechanism working, and had not put warning boards on each floor. The Commission applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur — meaning "the thing speaks for itself", a legal way of saying that a lift moving with its door open does not happen unless someone has been negligent. Both the building's maintenance party and the security agency were held liable.

The lesson from these cases is direct. If a lift in your society is dangerous, the law does not let people pass the parcel. Anyone in the chain — builder, lift manufacturer, annual maintenance contractor, RWA, security agency — can be held liable depending on what they did or failed to do.

Fire Safety and Other Safety Defects — Section 84 Kicks In

From July 2020, India has a formal product liability regime built into the CP Act itself. Sections 82 to 87 say that if a "product" causes "harm" because of a defect, the manufacturer, seller and service provider can all be sued together — and you do not have to prove they were negligent.

Section 84 says a product manufacturer is liable if (a) the product has a manufacturing defect, or (b) it is defective in design, or (c) it deviates from manufacturing specifications, or (d) it does not conform to express warranty, or (e) it fails to give adequate instructions or warnings. Section 84(2) adds something powerful — the manufacturer is liable even if he proves he was not negligent. This is called "no-fault" or "strict" liability, and it is a big shift from older law.

Section 85 then catches the seller in similar terms — if the seller had substantial control over design, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling, or altered the product, or made an independent express warranty. Section 86 covers product service providers — including lift maintenance companies, fire system maintenance contractors and AMC providers — if their service was faulty, deficient or if they failed to give adequate warnings.

What does this mean in plain terms? A fire extinguisher that does not work when needed is a defective product. A fire-sprinkler system that fails its monthly check is a defective product. A lift that opens on the wrong floor is a defective product. A society electrical panel that shorts and starts a fire is a defective product. If anyone in your family is injured, or if there is property damage, the CP Act now lets you sue everyone in the chain — manufacturer, seller, installer, AMC provider — and you do not have to prove fault. You only have to prove the defect and the harm.

Builder vs RWA — Who Is on the Hook After Handover?

The most common defence builders run is — "We have handed over to the Resident Welfare Association. They are responsible now." This is partly true, partly not. Let us break it down.

What is true: After handover, the day-to-day operation of the society — running the lift, paying the AMC, hiring security, collecting maintenance — is the RWA's responsibility. If a lift breaks down two years after handover because nobody renewed the AMC, the RWA cannot blame the builder for that.

What is not true: Construction defects, design defects, and short-delivery of promised features do not vanish at handover. If the lift was wrongly installed without a voltage stabiliser, that is a defect at the source — the builder remains liable. If the fire system was never commissioned properly, the builder remains liable. If the brochure promised glass capsule lifts and they were never installed, the builder remains liable. The CP Act's Section 2(11) "deficiency in service" applies whether the deficiency surfaces before or after handover, so long as the deficiency relates to what the builder was originally bound to deliver.

There is also a separate doctrine called the "defect liability period" — a fixed warranty window written into most builder-buyer agreements and RERA contracts. Typically this period is five years from handover under RERA, during which the builder must fix structural and quality defects free of charge. Even outside that window, common law and the CP Act allow claims so long as you can show the defect is traceable to construction, not later neglect.

The Six-Month Defect Window — and Why It Is Not the Last Word

One myth in old housing-board cases used to be that defects had to be reported within six months of possession. The National Commission has rejected this. In a case involving DDA self-financing scheme flats with defective floor levels, the Commission held that a consumer can complain about a defect even after the six-month internal window, so long as the complaint is filed within the general law of limitation. The lesson — a contractual six-month inspection clause is not the same as the legal limitation period. Read the warranty clause in your builder-buyer agreement carefully, and do not assume that if you missed an internal builder deadline, the law has closed its doors on you.

How the CP Act Overlaps With RERA and Municipal Law

For new construction common areas, three legal regimes overlap, and you can use them together:

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 gives you deficiency-in-service claims under Section 2(11), and product liability under Sections 82 to 87. You can file before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (claims up to Rs 50 lakh), State Commission (up to Rs 2 crore), or National Commission (above Rs 2 crore). The Supreme Court has held that consumer remedies are in addition to other remedies — you do not have to choose.

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) gives a parallel remedy. RERA Section 14(3) creates a five-year defect liability period during which the promoter must fix any defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services. RERA also lets you complain about lift, club, parking and similar promised amenities that the promoter failed to deliver.

The municipal and fire-safety regulations — Lifts Acts in many states, the National Building Code, state Fire Service Acts — impose statutory duties on the building owner (the builder before handover, the RWA after) to maintain safety equipment. Violations can trigger penal action by the municipal authority, and a consumer commission will treat a documented municipal violation as strong proof of deficiency in service.

You can run all three in parallel. A typical strategy is — file a RERA complaint for builder-side construction defects, file a CP Act complaint against the builder, lift company and AMC provider for compensation, and file a written complaint to the municipal authority and the fire department for safety violations. Each track produces a different kind of relief.

What Should I Actually Do Now?

If you are a society resident dealing with unsafe common areas, here is a practical roadmap. None of it requires a lawyer in the first 48 hours. Each step builds the evidence you will need later.

1. Stop using the dangerous equipment. If a lift is malfunctioning, post a notice and use the stairs. If a fire system is non-functional, every resident must be told in writing. The first duty of the RWA or society management is to prevent harm. If they do not do this, you can later sue them too.
2. Photograph and date everything. Cracks in lobby tiles, "Out of Order" signs on lifts, empty fire extinguishers, exposed wiring, a damaged staircase railing. Photos with date and time stamps are gold in consumer cases.
3. Write to the RWA in writing. Email is fine. List the defects, ask for a written reply within a defined time. If they do not reply, that silence itself is evidence.
4. Write to the builder in writing. Send a similar list to the builder, by email and by registered post. Demand rectification within thirty days. Many residents send a formal legal notice at this stage, which gives the builder a chance to correct things and starts the paper trail you will need later.
5. Pull out your builder-buyer agreement. Look at the section on common amenities or specifications. Match each promised item against what was actually delivered. This list becomes your shortfall claim.
6. Get a third-party safety audit, if needed. For lifts, ask the state Lift Inspector to do a statutory inspection. For fire systems, ask the local fire department. Their report is a public document and a strong piece of evidence.
7. File a written complaint with the local municipal authority and fire department. They have statutory powers to inspect, fine and even seal unsafe buildings.
8. File a RERA complaint if you are within the five-year defect liability period. This is fast, cheap, and squarely aimed at builder-side defects.
9. File a consumer complaint under Section 2(11) and, where there is harm or risk of harm, under Sections 82 to 87. You can join the builder, the lift manufacturer, the AMC provider, and the security agency as separate opposite parties in one complaint. You can also read up on broader consumer rights and how the Act works before filing.
10. Talk to a lawyer before you sign any settlement. Builders often offer small "goodwill" payments in return for a release. Once you sign that release, you usually cannot reopen the issue.

A Realistic Picture of What You Can Recover

Consumer commissions across India have awarded a wide range of reliefs in common-area defect cases. The exact relief depends on whether you are claiming compensation for harm already suffered, or rectification of a continuing defect, or refund of money paid for amenities never delivered.

Where there has been physical injury or death, large compensations have been awarded — the OTIS Elevator case discussed above is one example. Where there has been short delivery of promised features, commissions have ordered the builder either to provide the feature, or refund a proportionate part of the price with interest. Where the defect has caused continuing harassment but no quantified loss, commissions have routinely awarded mental agony compensation, costs of litigation, and a fixed timeline within which the builder must rectify.

What commissions do not do is award unrealistic punitive damages on a casual claim. The claim has to be specific, documented and supported by the agreement and the brochure. The more careful your evidence is in the first month, the larger your eventual award will be.

Where Pinaka Legal Fits In

Common-area cases are rarely simple. They usually have multiple opposite parties, overlapping jurisdiction across RERA, the consumer commission and the municipal authority, and a builder team that knows every standard defence. Drafting the complaint correctly in the first round — joining the right parties, citing the right sections, attaching the right documents — decides whether the case moves in months or in years. At Pinaka Legal, the property disputes team handles exactly this kind of multi-party society litigation across NCR and beyond, including pure RWA-side complaints, individual flat-owner claims, and class-style group complaints. A first consultation is usually enough to tell you whether your case is a straight CP Act matter, a parallel RERA matter, or a combination, and what evidence to start collecting today.

Your Society Was Sold To You As a Home, Not a Risk

The point of the CP Act, the product liability sections, and the RERA defect liability period is exactly this — when somebody sells you a home, they are also selling you a promise of safety. A lift that traps you, a fire system that does not work, a lobby that cracks within two years, a clubhouse that was never built — none of these are minor inconveniences. They are breaches of what you paid for, and Indian law has been clear since at least the OTIS Elevator case that the buyer and the resident are entitled to sue for it. The earlier you start the paper trail, the stronger your case will be.

Related Reads

Written by the Pinaka Legal Editorial Team. For queries on builder disputes, common-area defects and lift-safety claims, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the builder still liable for lift problems after he has handed over the society to the RWA?

It depends on the kind of problem. For day-to-day running of the lift and renewing the annual maintenance contract, the RWA becomes responsible after handover. But for construction defects, design defects, missing safety features, or short delivery of promised features, the builder remains liable. Indian consumer commissions, including the National Commission in the OTIS Elevator case, have refused to let builders escape by simply handing over to the RWA. If the defect is traceable to original construction or installation, the builder is still on the hook under Section 2(11) of the CP Act.

What is a safety defect under the new product liability sections?

Under Sections 82 to 87 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a product is defective if it has a manufacturing defect, a design defect, deviates from specifications, fails to meet the express warranty, or lacks adequate instructions or warnings. For a residential society, this covers lifts, fire extinguishers, fire-sprinkler systems, electrical panels, generators and similar safety equipment. If a defect in any of these causes harm — injury, death, or property damage — the manufacturer, seller and service provider can all be sued together, without needing to prove they were negligent. Section 84(2) specifically says liability exists even where the manufacturer proves no negligence.

Can I sue the lift maintenance company along with the builder?

Yes, and you should. The National Commission in the OTIS Elevator and Care Elevators cases has held both the lift company and the annual maintenance contractor jointly liable. Each is liable for a different part of the chain — the manufacturer for the equipment, the installer for the installation, the AMC provider for ongoing maintenance, and the building management for upkeep. A well-drafted consumer complaint joins all relevant opposite parties in one case, so the commission can decide each one's share rather than forcing the resident to chase them one by one.

What is the defect liability period and how long does it last?

The defect liability period is a contractual or statutory window during which the builder must fix construction and quality defects free of charge. Under RERA Section 14(3), this period is five years from the date of handover. Under most builder-buyer agreements, it ranges from one to five years depending on the clause. Outside this window, you can still pursue a claim under the general law of limitation, which is typically two years from when the cause of action arose for a CP Act complaint. The National Commission has clarified that a builder's internal six-month inspection clause does not override the general law of limitation.

Who pays compensation if someone is injured or killed in a lift accident in our society?

It depends on what caused the accident. If the lift had a manufacturing or design defect, the lift manufacturer is primarily liable under Section 84. If the AMC provider had not maintained it, that provider is liable under Section 86. If the builder had installed it without statutory safety features like a voltage stabiliser or door-interlock, the builder is liable. If the RWA or security agency had failed to put up warning signs when the lift was malfunctioning, they are liable too. In the OTIS Elevator case, the National Commission split liability between multiple opposite parties — the lift installer, the maintenance contractor and the building management — and awarded over Rs 3 crore in compensation.

The brochure promised glass capsule lifts but plain lifts were installed. Is that a deficiency?

Yes. The National Commission has held in multiple builder cases that brochures and advertisements showing specific features — glass capsule lifts, clubhouse, swimming pool, landscaped garden — become part of the consideration once you have paid the price. If the builder later substitutes a cheaper feature or simply does not provide it, that is misrepresentation and deficiency in service under Section 2(11). The remedy can be either provision of the promised feature, or a proportionate refund, plus mental agony compensation and litigation cost. Keep the original brochure carefully — it is usually the strongest piece of evidence in such a case.

Can the RWA file a single consumer complaint on behalf of all flat owners?

Yes. The CP Act permits a complaint by one or more consumers having the same interest. An RWA can file as the representative body, or a group of affected flat owners can file together. This is often more efficient than each owner filing separately, especially in cases of common-area defects where the cause and the relief are the same for everyone. The complaint must clearly say that it is filed in a representative capacity, and the commission may direct that notice be given to all similarly placed flat owners before final orders.

How long does a consumer complaint about lift or common-area defects take to decide?

The CP Act says the District Commission should decide a complaint within three months if no analysis is required, and within five months if expert evidence is needed. In practice, with appeals, cases involving multiple parties and expert reports often take longer, especially at the State and National Commission levels. The OTIS Elevator case, for example, ran for several years across forums. That said, where there is a serious safety risk, you can ask for an interim order — a direction that the lift be shut down, that the fire system be repaired immediately, or that the builder put up safety signage pending the full hearing.

Is there any pecuniary limit for filing a society common-area complaint?

Yes, but only for which forum hears your case. The District Commission hears claims up to Rs 50 lakh, the State Commission from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore, and the National Commission above Rs 2 crore. For most society common-area claims by individual flat owners — say, defects worth a few lakhs in compensation — the District Commission is the right starting point. For an RWA filing on behalf of a 300-flat society, the total claim can easily cross Rs 2 crore and would go to the National Commission. Choose the forum based on the total amount of relief you are seeking, including compensation, refund of any amount paid for amenities, and mental agony damages.

What if the builder offers a small settlement to drop the lift accident claim?

Be careful. Builders often offer a quick out-of-court settlement in return for a written release. Once you sign that release, you usually cannot reopen the claim. Before signing, compare the offer against what a consumer commission has awarded in similar cases — for serious lift injuries, the compensation can be many times what is offered initially. A short consultation with a property lawyer before signing is a small cost compared to giving away a much larger right. Pinaka Legal regularly helps flat owners review such settlement offers to make sure the figure is fair and the release is properly drafted.

Does Section 84 no-fault liability really mean the builder cannot escape by saying he was careful?

Yes, with limits. Section 84(2) of the CP Act, 2019 says a product manufacturer is liable in a product liability action even if he proves he was not negligent and not fraudulent in making the express warranty. This is called strict or no-fault liability. So if a lift, fire system or generator is defective and causes harm, the manufacturer cannot get away by showing that he followed all his usual processes. Section 87 lists narrow exceptions — misuse, alteration, obvious dangers — but these are read strictly against the manufacturer. The shift is meaningful, and post-2020 cases are increasingly applying it.

Is the lift accident new society who is liable question different in rented flats versus owned flats?

Mostly no. Whether you own the flat or are a tenant, if the lift or common area causes harm, your right to sue under the CP Act is broadly the same — you are a consumer of the lift service and a user of the building's safety equipment. The difference is usually only on the recovery side — an owner can also claim against the builder for breach of the original agreement, while a tenant's primary claim is against the landlord and the building management for unsafe premises. Both can use Sections 82 to 87 against the lift manufacturer, seller and AMC provider for product-related harm.

For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.