Our Story - CKAT Kochi

Our Story

​

Chapter 1

​

After a long wait, we were finally granted possession of our beloved abodes in 2018. Like everyone who gets to own a new home, we were overjoyed. The project (AWHO CKAT Silversand Island)  consisted of 264 apartments in three towers: Tower A, B, and C. Tower A had 56 apartments on 14 floors, while Towers B and C had 104 flats on 26 floors each. Apart from the apartment floors, there were three more floors: the ground floor, which only included the entrance lobby and elevators; the basement/underground floor, which only had car parking; and the top floor (above the apartments), which housed the elevator machine rooms and a utility area for gatherings and events.

Silver Sand Island, as the name suggests, is literally a small island formed by the surrounding river – the Kaniyampuzha River. Being a coastal area, the river water can also be called backwaters or brackish water, and it is known to have a high salt content.

As we began settling down as families and as a community in the following months after taking possession, the residents started noticing defects in the apartments. These defects included cracks, leakages, and loosening of floor tiles. As weeks turned into months, the severity of these defects grew. During Kerala's well-known monsoon season, water began pouring into the basement parking area through cracks that had developed in the thick reinforced concrete retaining walls.

Seriously concerned about these unexpected occurrences, we reported the defects to the builder. However, the response was unsatisfactory. In the meantime, the Residents Welfare Association was registered according to government norms, and an elected body (management committee) was put in place to manage the affairs of the society.

Both the individual owners and the RWA took up the matter of defects with AWHO.  After sustained communication, the Deputy Director of AWHO visited the site in November 2019 to assess the situation on the ground. By this time, it had become somewhat clear that the defects were not superficial, as one would expect in a new building, but were structural defects of a more serious nature. The official was briefed about the seriousness of the defects and was taken around the buildings. AWHO acknowledged the situation and assured that action would be taken to address it. Some of the defects that were occurring at the time have been posted (Defect Photos 2019) for better visualization, which would give an idea of their extent. Extracts of the Minutes of the Meeting assuring necessary action.

2020
As we move on to the next chapter of the story, the assurance of a large organization gave us hope and confidence and we waited for some action as the corrosion, spalling and related defects spread to more and more areas. AWHO put the building contractor on the job to repair the defects. What followed was a deeply disappointing experience. Instead of taking the job seriously, the contractor carried out ‘cosmetic’ patch repairs in the defective areas. The residents who are mostly non-technical, were still hopeful that what the contractor was doing in their wisdom would be adequate to solve the problems. As time passed, there was no respite from the defects. Slowly, concrete started cracking and falling down exposing corroded steel rebars. 
Incidentally, there developed cracks in the society’s administrative structure also, due to the difference of opinion among the owners in the manner in which AWHO was doing the repairs and in the manner in which the RWA was dealing with the situation. Even though AWHO was going slow on the rectification, RWA appeared to be towing the line of AWHO which did not help in allaying the fears of the owners.  
A few owners took the initiative of approaching a reputed engineering college- Mar Athanasios College of Engineering Kothamangalam (MACE)- with a request to inspect the site and give their expert opinion. The experts from MACE inspected the buildings and subsequently submitted a report. The report brought out worrisome findings important of which include: “Conclusion: In short, the corrosion and corrosion-induced structural distress in the structure are in severe stage considering that the building was constructed just about 5 years ago. Moreover, in many places the cracks are re-appearing in the same region or occurring in the nearby portion (halo effect) immediately after the patch-repair. This shows the present procedure of crack-filling, patch-repair etc. is not sufficient to address the root cause and give a long life for the structure. As the structure is exposed to coastal atmosphere, immediate steps should be taken to preserve the structure in its present condition to avoid a disaster.”  (MACE Report)
When the pressure increased, AWHO decided to carryout a structural testing of the buildings. The task of selecting the firm (consultant) for the study was given to the RWA. The RWA sent the names of a few firms to AWHO. After a while, we were told that a firm-BVIL- has been selected as the consultant. A few owners smelled something fishy in the whole process of selection.
Firstly, the involvement of RWA. An RWA is formed to undertake day-to-day administration of the society and they should neither get involved in the highly specialised task of structural repairs nor do they have the expertise for it. Secondly, these repairs pertain to original construction defects which is the sole responsibility of the builder (AWHO) and they should not get RWA involved in this. Thirdly and finally, AWHO is a specialised agency with decades of experience, hence did not need any help in the matter. 
Because of all the above reasons, some owners expressed their objection in RWA’s involvement in the whole affair. However, ‘might is right’, so AWHO had their way with the compliant RWA.
A word must be told about the process of selection. Normal practice for selection is through a tendering process. Here, even though quotations were called for, it was later found that BVIL was not the lowest tenderer and there was no transparent justification for selecting the firm as the consultant for the job.
BVIL carried out the testing and structural analysis. With the help of a few vigilant owners, the RWA found the report misleading and incomplete. (1st BVIPL Report Nov 2020). RWA  wrote a complaint to NABL (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories). (Review report on 1st bureau Veritas Report by IITM). After persistent efforts, it was decided to do another round of tests. (Complaint against Bureau veritas to NABL)
In the meantime, the RWA approached IIT Madras, Chennai to carryout a study of the buildings and the BVIL report. IITM submitted their report in December 2020 (IITM Report 1) which brought out important findings including: “….the beams and columns are also severely corroded/cracked/spalled and patch repairs were also failing at fast rate. This raised concerns about the chloride conditions of the concrete used. Later, all the tests done by IIT Madras and some tests done by BV indicate more than allowable amounts of chlorides (as per Table 7 of IS 456) in the concrete used in the about 5-year old structure. This indicates the presence of admixed chlorides in the concrete; either through mixing water, curing water, aggregates, and/or admixtures used.”
“……the BV Report is incomplete and inadequate to make necessary inferences and recommendations….”
“….these three towers need IMMEDIATE attention. Hence, I request you to avoid further delays due to bureaucratic and other reasons; because such delays will lead the building to a more unsafe situation for the residents. Hence, we strongly suggest to prioritize, obtain the revised report in two weeks, and complete the suitable repairs before the upcoming monsoon season….” (Evaluation report on BV report by IITM)
 

2021

2021 began with a mixed bag of opportunities and challenges. It was decided that BVIL will do another work of structural analysis. Some owners suggested to AWHO and RWA to entrust this important task to any other reputed institute such as IIT or NIT as BVIL has already failed in their work. However, this request was turned down by AWHO and RWA which, in hindsight, set the stage for the next failure. 
BVIL submitted the next report in April 2021, after the structural testing and analysis. Some owners observed that the testing was not complete and proper and raised objections. 
In the heavy Kerala monsoon, the buildings, especially the basement, experienced severe distress by way of leakage of water from the positive side. Water could be seen pouring inside from a number of locations along the entire retaining wall. The contractor continued patch repairs from the negative side using grouting, cement plastering etc. which obviously couldn’t prevent the leakage. Some videos and photos would reveal the severity of the situation.
At other places in the buildings, concrete continued to get damages due to corrosion, spalling, and falling down of the spalled concrete pieces. This also posed serious danger to the occupants.
In the meantime, Chief Engineer (MES) was tasked to inspect the buildings and submit report. The CE visited the site alongwith a specialised team including design, construction, repairs of corrosion-affected buildings etc and carried out assessment. The report was submitted to the authorities. Some owners requested for the report, however, it was denied. It was intimated that AWHO and RWA were not in receipt of the report. However, some owners would manage to obtain the report two years later through other sources, and would also learn that AWHO and RWA were aware of the said report. Thus the case was becoming more and more intriguing and suspense-filled. The report clearly brought out serious deficiencies in design and construction of the buildings, no wonder, AWHO and RWA preferred to hide the report.
In the meantime, Managing Director AWHO also visited the site and inspected the buildings. The MD also made promises to address all the issues faced by the owners. By this time, such inspections and promises became a routine for keeping the owners engaged and satisfied with promises. General Body meetings were conducted to take decisions about the course of action. Most owners did not participate because of their commitment in their jobs, lack of technical knowledge and hesitation in getting involved in politics. AWHO managed to influence the RWA and get decisions in their favour, which unfortunately was not resolving any of the issues, but were only complicating them.
 

2022.

          Another year, another chapter. This was typically becoming a David versus Goliath story. The only thing is that instead of one sling shot, this had become a prolonged battle of attrition. 
Because of complaints from some owners, of malpractices in the testing, AWHO engaged GEC and NIT to inspect the buildings and evaluate BVIL report-2. GEC submitted their report to AWHO. Some owners requested AWHO and RWA to share the GEC report with the owners. AWHO and RWA refused for reasons best known to them even though it was the owners’ right to know the findings.
Some owners managed to get the report through RTI. The report revealed shocking findings, the important of which are:
-    No evidence of any quality control during the entire construction of the project.
-    Lateral stability is doubtful for some shear walls.
-    There were changes from the original design which was unexplained.
-    The reasons for the condition were high chloride content in the concrete which might have been due to water used in the concrete, water used for curing, aggregate etc.
-    Concrete cover to rebars as per the design was lesser than the specified cover as per the BIS standards.  
-    Practical and economical retrofitting is not feasible.
-    If at all retrofitting is considered, it would require complete evacuation of all the residents and removal of all service-connections.   
Surprisingly, instead of taking up the issues brought out by GEC, AWHO tasked BVIL to evaluate the GEC report. BVIL found the GEC report incomplete and everyone together decided to set aside the GEC report.
So we had BVIL submitting the report, GEC evaluating the BVIL report and finding it deficient, and BVIL in turn evaluating the GEC report and finding it deficient, and finally AWHO setting aside the GEC report. So we had the thief who also became the Police who investigated and relieved the thief.
In the meantime, the real Police also got involved. As it became clear that the defects and damages were the result of criminal negligence, cheating and other offences, owners approached the Police with criminal complaints. The Police action was slow and then the owners approached the court requesting to investigate the case. After hearing the complainant, the court issued directions to register FIR and investigate the case. The Police registered FIR and commenced investigation.
After having set aside the GEC report, AWHO made a made grand plan to conduct yet another structural analysis of the buildings. Some owners requested to accept the GEC report as it was prepared by reputed government institutions and had recommended that that economic and practical retrofitting was not possible. This was the closest one could state that the buildings deserved to be demolished and reconstructed. However, as the persons accused of wrongdoing, AWHO would never accept this fait accompli. To achieve their aim, the RWA top brass was also in support. So the owners faced an extreme challenge. The story went into the next stage.
In the meantime, the condition of the buildings continued to deteriorate. Concrete pieces started breaking and falling down with greater frequency and became more life-threatening. In some instances, people had very narrow misses from the falling dangers. Granite panels fixed to the shear walls got detached alongwith the concrete due to corrosion, and were stuck using bonding tapes. The scene grew quite bad in many ways. It looked non-technical, shabby and threatening. 
As AWHO decided to go for another structural analysis, some owners requested to  engage a reputed agency such as IIT or NIT, however, such proposals were turned down by AWHO and RWA. The contract was awarded to BVIL in December 2022. What was shocking is that it was a contract worth about Rs. 60 lakhs and the contract was awarded without any tendering procedure and in violation of legal other norms. So here we have lucky BVIL getting contract after contract. It was amazing for an international firm.