Another Delhi building collapse kills 2, revives scrutiny of MCD safety checks
(Image courtesy: Screen short of a widely shared x video)
New Delhi: A father and son died after a building collapsed during construction in Harsh Vihar on Sunday, less than two months after seven people, including five students, were killed in Satya Niketan. The latest incident raises questions about supervision of building alterations, although investigators have not established whether the Harsh Vihar work violated regulations.
The victims, Chanderpal, 60, and Vijay Kumar, 33, were pulled from rubble at Milan Garden on Sewa Dham Road and declared dead at Guru Teg Bahadur hospital. Police said the pair had taken the construction contract, while the property was reportedly owned by Manoj Kumar.
The Delhi fire services received an emergency call at 6.46pm and dispatched five fire tenders to the location. The firefighters, police, civil defence volunteers and NDRF personnel participated in the rescue operation, which continued for nearly 14 hours. Divisional fire officer, Ravinder Singh, said rescue operations had concluded, although teams would remain deployed at the site as a precaution.
Additional deputy commissioner of Police, Sandeep Lamba, confirmed that construction was underway to add another floor to the existing building. “We received a call that a building had collapsed. The original structure was an old, single-storey building; an additional floor was being constructed on top. The area is completely enclosed, making it difficult to even identify exactly which building collapsed,” he said told reporters.
The Delhi minister, Kapil Mishra, who visited the site along with minister Ashish Sood, offered a preliminary explanation for the collapse. “At first glance, it appears that an attempt was being made to install a new lintel; it collapsed, causing the floor below to cave in as well, trapping two people-reportedly a father and his son,” Mishra said. The precise structural cause remains under investigation.
Satya Niketan probe focuses on repair work
On September 6, a five-storey building operating as paying guest accommodation near Delhi University’s South Campus collapsed while repairs were underway, killing seven people. Police subsequently arrested six suspects, including members of the property-owning family and people involved in managing the accommodation and supervising construction.
In a September status report to the Delhi high court, police alleged inadequate precautions during alterations and identified excessive loading or weakening of the structure as possible factors. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.
As RNA Media previously reported, the investigation examined the roles of the building’s owners, paying guest operators and a labour contractor.
Safety certificate drive still underway
Following the tragedy, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) identified 2,453 paying guest buildings accommodating approximately 50,529 people. It told the Delhi high court that sanctioned plans could be traced or verified for only 730 properties, although missing records do not automatically establish unauthorized construction.
Between September 6 and October 10, the MCD reported taking action against 1,046 properties across Delhi, including sealing 282 and demolishing 47 dangerous buildings. The figures concern a wider enforcement campaign, not only student accommodation.
On October 14, municipal authorities directed officials to seek structural safety certificates from more than 2,400 paying guest premises within 15 days. By October 19, certificates had been received for only 53 properties, the Times of India reported, citing MCD officials, although the deadline had not yet expired.
The wider safety debate also follows an October 7 collapse in New Seemapuri that killed at least four people. No common structural cause has been established across these incidents.
Harsh Vihar has not been identified as part of the paying guest survey. Investigators must still determine whether the additional construction was approved, why the structure failed and whether any criminal liability arises.
