HT Exclusive: Contractors ignored workers’ warnings about weak structure, says FIR on Chawri Bazar collapse

A building under construction in Gali Sitara near Chawri Bazar Metro station collapsed on Thursday morning. The collapse happened while workers were carrying out concrete work. It matters because the FIR alleges that workers had warned contractors about weak construction and insufficient support before the accident.

The third-floor lintel reportedly gave way around 9.30am. The remaining floors collapsed 15 to 20 minutes later. Two workers, Kishori, 40, and Sanjeet, 45, died under the debris. Firoz, who was working near the rear portion, survived. Two other workers sustained injuries.

Police arrested three contractors in the early hours of Friday. The FIR names Tajuddin and Furkan as accused, while police identified the arrested men as Siraj, Tajuddin and Furkan. The case also raised questions about construction without an approved plan and MCD’s response to an earlier warning.

A lintel is a horizontal support above an opening, while a concrete slab is a broad structural layer that forms a floor or roof. Both must carry their own weight and transfer loads safely through the building. Fresh concrete also needs time to harden, or cure, before it can reliably support additional weight.

In this case, Firoz told police that workers warned the lintel had not dried and could not support another slab. They reportedly said more cement and wood were needed. The FIR alleges that contractors still told them to continue because changes would increase construction costs.

The collapse shows why sequencing and temporary support matter during construction. The third-floor lintel reportedly gave way during concrete work, followed by the other floors. The FIR treats the alleged decision to continue despite warnings as part of the case against the contractors.

The building stood on a plot measuring around 70 square yards. It was described as a ground-plus-three-floor structure in Gali Sitara, near Chawri Bazar Metro station. Its size and height matter because each added floor and slab increased the load that the supporting structure had to carry.

According to Firoz’s statement, construction was taking place in stages, and three concrete slabs, called lanterns in the report, had already been laid. Workers allegedly believed the existing slab was too weak to bear another one. They said additional cement and construction material were needed for support.

The collapse began around 9.30am on Thursday. The third-floor lintel reportedly failed while concrete work was underway. The remaining floors came down 15 to 20 minutes later. The sequence trapped two workers and left two others injured, while Firoz survived from the rear portion.

Cement, timber supports and curing are basic safeguards during staged construction. Concrete must gain strength before it carries substantial loads. Timber or other temporary supports help hold a slab while the structure develops enough strength. If either is inadequate, the load can exceed the building’s capacity.

Firoz told police that the workers said the lintel had not dried up. They also said more cement and wood were needed to support it before another slab was placed. The workers were concerned about the quality of the material and the amount of cement being used. Contractors allegedly rejected the proposed changes because costs would rise.

The reported failure of the third-floor lintel during concrete work shows the danger of continuing despite those concerns. The FIR alleges that nobody acted on the warnings. It names Tajuddin and Furkan under provisions including culpable homicide and negligent building-related conduct.

The workers performed the construction and reportedly warned about weak materials, insufficient cement and inadequate support. The contractors overseeing the work were Tajuddin and Furkan in the FIR; police later identified Siraj, Tajuddin and Furkan as arrested contractors. The owners were approached, but reportedly said contractors were handling the work.

Firoz and other workers told contractors that the lintel had not dried and needed more cement and wood. They also tried to alert the owners. Police later registered the FIR, arrested three contractors and investigated the collapse. The FIR invokes provisions covering culpable homicide, negligent building conduct and common intention.

The MCD had a separate enforcement role. A police officer alerted its City SP Zone about construction months earlier. MCD acknowledged the letter and conducted an inspection, but its inquiry alleged that repair work was used as cover for fresh construction without permissions. The case highlights responsibility across the construction chain.

Construction without an approved plan removes an important layer of oversight. Official plans and inspections help authorities check whether work matches permitted designs and safety requirements. Ignoring warnings can allow structural weaknesses to become more serious while workers and nearby residents remain exposed.

Here, the building allegedly had no sanctioned plan, and workers’ concerns were reportedly dismissed. The third-floor lintel failed during concrete work, two workers died, and two others were injured. Police arrested three contractors and registered an FIR invoking provisions that include culpable homicide and negligent building-related conduct.

The consequences extend beyond the people at the site. An unsafe structure can endanger residents, neighbours, passers-by and emergency responders. The case also prompted questions about MCD enforcement after police alerted the civic body months earlier. Stronger follow-up could stop unauthorized work before construction reaches a dangerous stage.

Building permits, inspections and enforcement create checkpoints before a structure becomes more difficult to correct. A permit records what construction is authorized. Inspections can identify unsafe materials, unsupported additions or work that differs from the approved plan. Enforcement gives warnings real consequences instead of leaving them unresolved.

In this case, police wrote to the MCD about new residential construction on a roughly 70-square-yard property. MCD acknowledged the communication and later alleged that the owner used a repair advisory to undertake fresh construction on the second and third floors without required permissions. The building later collapsed during concrete work.

Effective follow-up could include inspecting the site, verifying permissions and stopping unauthorized construction. It could also require unsafe work to be corrected before another slab is added. The Chawri Bazar case shows that a warning matters only when the responsible authority acts quickly and construction decisions follow safety concerns.