Chintels collapse: SC issues notice to builder, state govt, local agencies

On February 10 this year, the roof of a condominium collapsed, causing the six floors below it, up to the first floor, also killing two persons

Terming the collapse of six floors of a recently constructed tower in Gurugram’s Chintels Paradiso condominium a “serious matter”, the Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the builder, the Haryana government, police and local authorities on the necessary repairs to be carried out on the remaining “unsafe” structures within the project.

Representing residents, advocate Prashant Bhushan said the state government should be directed to present details of the structural audit of the nine towers within the Chintels Paradiso apartments. (Vipn Kumar/HT Photo)

Issuing notice on a petition filed by 188 residents of the housing society demanding the structural defects be cured and rent be paid to residents who were forced to vacate the towers, the bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said, “See the advertisement which you (builder) made showing lush green landscape. It is such a beautiful project in pictures but what is the reality we all know.”

On February 10 this year, the roof of a condominium collapsed, causing the six floors below it, up to the first floor, also killing two persons. Posting the matter to January 21, the bench said, “How do you build such a structure? It is a serious matter that a structure constructed so recently collapsed.”

The builder was represented by senior advocate ANS Nadkarni who sought to allay the concerns raised by the bench. “It is a very good project but what happened is unfortunate. Those who suffered losses were compensated.”

Putting the blame on residents, Nadkarni said, “Without letting the developer know, the residents brought in machinery and made some changes. Due to the machine, the entire building vibrated and the incident took place.”

Representing residents, advocate Prashant Bhushan said the state government should be directed to present details of the structural audit of the nine towers within the Chintels Paradiso apartments.

“According to the audit carried out, all towers are unsafe. The residents in these towers have been asked to move out while they have decided to demolish that tower where the incident took place.” Bhushan said, before requesting the court to seek a report from the Haryana government on the status of the criminal investigation into the death of the two persons.

To this, the bench remarked, “That is the primary thing they will have to give.”

Bhushan said residents who are being asked to vacate the towers have to look for alternative rental accommodations. “The developer should be told to pay us rent,” he said, adding that the IIT structural audit carried out at the site showed massive lapses in the construction material used by the builder.

The bench told Nadkarni, “You have to help them. We must remind you that there is a criminal case also against you.” Nadkarni sought time to take instructions while stating that inspection has been carried out only for the tower where the collapse took place.

In April, the top court had showed its inclination to hear the matter after the 188 petitioners told the court that the matter raised an “extraordinary case” where regulatory authorities turned a blind eye to the irregularities.

”Since the top court had already issued a notice on a similar plea filed by the son of one of the victims who died during the roof collapse, the court agreed to consider this matter too. The earlier petition by the class 11 student demanded an independent probe, structural audit of the buildings, and compensation for the fraud plated by the state officials who granted occupancy certificates for the towers that were described by the petitioner as “death traps”.

Bhushan said residents are “living in constant fear for their own safety” as the apartments showed visible structural deformities such as cracks in the ceiling and balconies, cracks in the tiles, deflection in balconies etc.

The petition said, “The petitioners are seeking directions from this court to the respondents to carry out the necessary repairs/reconstruction works and to arrange for temporary equivalent alternate accommodation or pay the petitioners for the temporary equivalent alternate accommodation that the Petitioners will have to shift to along with involved additional cost while the said repairs/reconstruction works are being carried out.”

In addition, the petitioners also sought compensation for the disruption caused by the accident.