New Delhi, The five-storey building that collapsed in Satya Niketan is the fifth in the city this year, the seven people killed in the congested colony near Delhi’s University’s South Campus taking to 16 the number of those who lost their lives in the tragedies.
These include unregulated and unauthorised construction, additional floors, ageing structures and a lack of structural assessments. Add to the list inadequate precautions during repair work and monsoon-related water damage to foundations, walls and basements and the picture of negligence is complete. The MCD suspended two engineers, while police arrested the building owner and two contractors. After the Satya Niketan collapse, the MCD has suspended five officials.
The 16 deaths have come from three incidents – six in Saket in May, three in Rohini in July and seven in the latest incident on September 6, according to official figures and police statements. On July 8, a four-storey building under construction collapsed in Rohini’s Sector 16 amid heavy rain, killing three people and burying others under the debris. The civic body also directed its executive engineers across all zones to inspect structures under their jurisdiction and submit comprehensive reports by September 10.
The underlying factors leading to the collapse of all the buildings are common, said officials. A magisterial inquiry ordered by the Delhi government later held the Municipal Corporation of Delhi “primarily responsible” for the collapse. The inquiry also found that MCD officials created “fabricated” records after the collapse to suggest they had already taken action. The MCD said the structure had received sanctioned building plans under the SARAL Scheme, which allows automatic clearance and building permits through a self-verified undertaking submitted by property owners through certified architects or engineers. It said plumbing work involving the cutting of structural beams and columns may have contributed to the collapse.
It found that illegal third and fourth floors had been added to the building and that the civic body failed to act on a complaint about the unauthorised construction received more than two months earlier.
