Are canopies outside Indian airports a safety hazard? MC Explains

Roof collapse at Delhi airport

Indian airports made the headlines for the wrong reasons last week, after three safety-related incidents over a span of three days across Rajkot, Jabalpur, and Delhi air terminals.

A portion of the roof canopy collapsed outside Rajkot international airport amid heavy rains on June 29, just a day after the roof canopy and metallic support beams collapsed at terminal 1  of Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport.

Earlier, on June 27, a section of the roof canopy of the new terminal building at Jabalpur airport fell on a car following heavy rains.

Incidents of roof collapse are not new in India — back in March 2024, a portion of the roof at the Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport  at Guwahati, had collapsed.

Similarly, the ceiling of the Veer Savarkar International Airport in Port Blair, in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, had collapsed in July 2023.

Which brings us to the question on everybody's mind of late:

Are canopies outside airports a safety hazard?

While former Aviation Minister Praful Patel, during whose tenure the Delhi airport terminal was built, refused to comment on "something built 15 years ago," he did say that the "one of best construction companies in the country, possibly the world," was involved in the construction of the airport's canopy.

Current and former officials from the Airport Authority of India (AAI) told Moneycontrol that tensile structures used to build most canopies outside airports in India have been praised for their practicality and economic advantages.

"The use of tensile structures for rooftop canopies is the norm across the world. Not only are they cheaper compared to reinforced concrete structures, they're also more flexible when it comes to design," a senior AAI official said.

He added that maintenance of tensile structures is also more cost and time effective, which makes them the obvious choice for rooftop canopies.

Similarly, Abha Shukla, former Director in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, told Moneycontrol that while tensile structures may be more cost effective when it comes to rooftop canopies, in no way did they compromise on the safety aspect.

"Using a tensile membrane roofing structure reduces the overall load on an existing structure, if designed properly," Shukla said.

However, a senior executive at Ahuja Consultants, a company involved in designing high-rise buildings in the national capital region, told Moneycontrol that many builders do not design for greater wind force in special areas — such as near edges and corners.

"Further, special roof profiles are not covered in design codes and require wind tunnel analysis. Of course one can't discount poor workmanship as a probable cause," the executive said.

History of roof collapse at Delhi airport

The recent incident at Delhi airport  was the second such in the last 15 years.

On August 22, 2009, the roof of terminal 1 collapsed after it failed to withstand a thundersquall with wind speeds of  over 90 kmph.

Back then, Andrew Harrison, the Chief Operating Officer of DIAL (Delhi International Airport Limited), had expressed his unhappiness about the time constraints the management had faced in constructing the terminal.

However, ministry officials had said that quality is not to be sacrificed because of  lack of time, and if a project has to be completed in a hurry, more manpower and finances should be employed, instead of doing a slipshod job.

Terminal 1D was the first new terminal built after the GMR group-led DIAL took over Delhi airport from the government-owned AAI.

Following Friday’s incident, the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) has ordered a probe by the aviation safety regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and structural engineers from IIT Delhi have been asked to assess the incident. MoCA said that further examination will be decided based on the initial findings of the IIT Delhi team.

DIAL has also been directed to undertake a thorough inspection, which will be supervised by the DGCA. Additionally, the AAI has been directed to issue a circular to all airports in the country “to conduct a thorough inspection of structural strength.”

Who is liable for construction-related incidents?

While Patel said that Larsen & Toubro (L&T) had constructed  terminal 1 D of Delhi airport, the construction major clarified that the company had not constructed the collapsed structure, nor were they responsible for its maintenance.

“We extend our deepest sympathies to those affected by the unfortunate incident at Terminal 1 of Delhi airport in the early hours of June 28, 2024. We want to clarify that L&T did not construct the collapsed structure, nor are we responsible for its maintenance,” L&T said in a statement.

It added that, “At the request of DIAL, L&T executed a T1 expansion project in 2019. The collapse occurred approximately 110 metres from the extended portion of T1, which was constructed by L&T and commissioned in March 2024. We confirm that the collapse has had no impact on this extended portion.”

The terminal was designed by architect Hafeez Contractor, while Delhi-based BL Kashyap & Sons was the construction contractor for the project.

Tata Consulting Engineers served as the project management and quality control consultant for the project, while Tata BlueScope Steel was the roofing contractor.

Emails sent to all parties remained unanswered at the time of publishing.

Lawyers Moneycontrol spoke to pointed out that to attribute responsibility to a certain stakeholder, there are multiple aspects that require in-depth examination.

They pointed out that depending on the circumstances, the victim can file a claim against the general contractor, the sub-contractor, construction manager, architect, engineer, or owner of the site.

"It is commonplace for infrastructure contracts to provide for a Defects Liability Period (DLP) after completion of the project, where the contractor continues to be liable for the work executed during the term of the contract," Suvigya Awasthy, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, told Moneycontrol.

He added that it would also be prudent to assess whether the incident falls under the category of force majeure and was beyond the reasonable control of any individual.

"To satisfy the grounds of force majeure, it would require to be proved that the rainfall was incessant and more than the trends of the previous years during the same time," Awasthy said.