The recent incident in Margao, Goa, where a slab from an old building collapsed, damaging three cars, underscores a pressing concern regarding the safety of aging structures in urban India. This event not only highlights infrastructural decay but also brings to the forefront the legal responsibilities of property owners, municipal authorities, and tenants in ensuring building safety.
While no human injuries were reported, the event has revived fears that the Margao Municipal Council (MMC) remains inert despite having statutory powers to act. The incident highlights the evolving legal discourse on occupiers’ liability, civic accountability, and the duty of care owed by municipalities under Indian law.
Municipal powers under Section 184-A
Section 184-A of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, squarely empowers a Municipal Council to require the removal or demolition of buildings deemed structurally dangerous or likely to cause injury to persons or property. The provision authorises the Chief Officer to issue written notices after inspection and, if necessary, carry out demolition at the occupier’s cost, if compliance is not secured within the prescribed time.
Yet, in Margao as in several Goan towns no such action is visible despite multiple such unsafe structures standing in full view of the public. The slab collapse was not an unforeseeable act of God; it was a predictable result of institutional lethargy. The absence of even a preliminary identification list of dangerous buildings reflects a systemic abdication of statutory obligations.
Legal liability for unsafe premises
The Indian legal system recognises the tort of negligence where a duty of care is breached, resulting in foreseeable damage. In the present context, MMC’s failure to act under Section 184-A despite the visible condition of the building constitutes a breach of statutory and common law duties. Property owners, too, are not insulated. Where control of maintenance lies with the owner or managing society, liability for failure to undertake timely repairs may attach, especially when the structure endangers public property.
The Delhi High Court, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (AIR 1966 SC 1750), held a municipal authority liable for the collapse of a clock tower due to negligence in maintenance. Similarly, the Occupiers' Liability principle though not
codified in India has been consistently recognised through judicial interpretation (Liability for Dangerous Premises, iPleaders, 2019).
Municipal accountability and precedents
The doctrine of vicarious liability of public authorities arises when failure to discharge public duties results in injury. Courts in India have evolved the concept of constitutional torts, wherein governmental inaction leads to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal safety (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960).
While property damage does not rise to the level of constitutional infringement, civil remedies remain open. If municipal apathy contributed to or failed to mitigate a known hazard, the Council may be impleaded as a co-defendant in a civil suit for damages, especially if prior complaints were ignored.
Rent control laws
Another layer of complexity is added by outdated rent control laws. Many landlords cite low returns due to rent caps as a reason for the lack of upkeep, while tenants resist eviction citing housing shortages. This policy conundrum fosters a status quo where no stakeholder has the incentive or legal compulsion to renovate or vacate dangerous buildings.
However, legal frameworks such as the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, when read with Section 184-A, empower authorities to intervene even without the consent of the landlord or tenant. The failure lies in enforcement, not in legislative design.
Damages and remedies available to victims
Owners of the three vehicles crushed in the Margao incident may seek damages under tort law by proving the failure of either the property owner or the MMC to exercise reasonable care. Photographic evidence, lack of prior notices, and failure to barricade dangerous zones can establish a prima facie case.
In several jurisdictions, courts have awarded compensation for losses caused by falling trees, balcony collapses, and unauthorised extensions, applying the principles of nuisance, negligence, and breach of statutory duty. The absence of personal injury in the present case does not negate liability for property loss.
Furthermore, the presence of crumbling facades or protruding slabs over public roads introduces a compounded hazard under road safety jurisprudence. Section 133 CrPC enables preventive intervention, while Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, holds road-owning agencies accountable for injuries or deaths due to their inaction. When a falling slab damages vehicles on a public road or endangers lives, it is not merely a structural issue it becomes a road safety failure inviting criminal, civil, and administrative liability.
Conclusion
The laws exist. So do the powers under Section 184-A. But what fails, repeatedly, is the will to act. The collapse in Margao is not an isolated event; it is part of a pattern of neglect that afflicts municipalities across Goa. Until proactive surveys, enforcement of demolition notices, and legal consequences for non-compliance become routine, such incidents will recur.
In the end, accountability must descend as surely as the slabs do, else it is only a matter of time before lives, not just vehicles are lost beneath the weight of administrative apathy.
