Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Multiple inspections confirmed severe corrosion in the reinforced concrete members due to high chloride content. The sources of chlorides were suspected to include mixing water, curing water, aggregates, or admixtures used during construction. Many reports indicated that while there were no major structural defects initially identified (as noted by Bureau Veritas), various functional distress features needed addressing to prevent further deterioration. Repeated mentions of reappearing cracks demonstrate that prior patching methods are ineffective without tackling root causes. Initial recommendations emphasized investigating corrosion causes and conducting necessary repairs through competent agencies. Subsequent evaluations stressed immediate remedial actions and periodic maintenance as essential for prolonging structural lives. A later evaluation by IIT Madras highlighted that continued occupancy poses serious risks to residents because of significant corrosion levels. Evacuating residents from Towers B and C was recommended due to urgent safety concerns. Several assessments pointed out a lack of documented quality control procedures during construction, which raises alarms about potential future distress not currently visible. Some reports noted limitations in retrofitting options due to accessibility issues within the structures themselves; particularly challenging retrofitting shear walls housing lifts while keeping towers occupied. It's clear from multiple expert recommendations that immediate steps should be taken regarding evacuation before a possible disaster occurs. The ongoing presence of chlorides indicates an inherent flaw in construction practices or 2025:KER:8278 materials used requiring comprehensive structural treatment rather than surface- level fixes which had proven inadequate.

39. AWHO claims that distress to the buildings arose from acts or omissions of the Project Director, the architect and the contractor, including negligence in ensuring structural stability and adherence to project specifications. It is alleged that the architect changed building layouts without proper checks for structural integrity despite a contract worth over Rs.3 crore with the architect. Lapses were reported during construction.

40. The petitioners assert that there was negligence in adhering to planning and supervisory instructions resulting in poor construction quality due to low-quality materials used by Silpa Constructions. The architect contends it fulfilled its obligations while claiming that any observed distress was due to design inadequacies rather than construction defects. Reports allege failures on the part of 2025:KER:8278 the Project Director, the architect and the builder. The architect allegedly breached his duties by issuing completion certificates despite known defects and inadequate scrutiny of workmanship or materials used during construction. Conversely, M/s Silpa Projects denies using substandard materials and attributes any distress seen in Towers B and C primarily to design changes made without proper vetting rather than their work quality. They argue significant alterations led to cracks resulting from overstress conditions due to inadequate designs approved initially. Both parties acknowledge numerous defects throughout construction with no proper remedial measures. Ultimately, independent reports conclude severe structural issues within the buildings necessitating demolition based on human-induced failures from all involved parties--AWHO (the society), architects, contractors--and the statutory authorities including the Municipality concerned who failed in their statutory responsibilities leading up to this situation.