E-Paper
Gurugram Chintels tower to be razed ‘immediately’: Officials
Towers E and F are to be vacated, and a structural audit report for these two buildings will be released within 20 days, based on which the DC will take a further decision.
Prefer HTon Google
Gurugram deputy commissioner (DC) Nishant Kumar Yadav on Wednesday issued an order directing the demolition of a tower at Chintels Paradiso society in Sector 109, and the settling of all dues of flat owners by within a period of 60 days.
Further, Towers E and F are to be vacated, and a structural audit report for these two buildings will be released within 20 days, based on which the DC will take a further decision.
J N Yadav, vice president of Chintels, the developer, said, “We are cooperating with government authorities and effected residents and will continue to do so.”
However, residents expressed their disappointment with the order, stating that the compensation of ₹1.5-2 crore offered was not enough.
The DC’s order comes months after renovations at a sixth-floor flat in Tower D on February 10 led to the ceiling of a bedroom collapsing, resulting in a cascade effect of portions of flats caving in, all the way down to the first floor. Two people had died in the incident.
The decision to demolish Tower D was taken after a three-member Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi (IIT-D) committee, formed to conduct a structural audit of the building, stated in its September report that the structure deteriorated faster than expected, even though the condominium was only occupied for about five years. The team also found significant corrosion of steel reinforcement in the debris of the tower, high chloride content in the concrete, and observed rust marks during visual inspection.
A magisterial inquiry report, submitted on Wednesday by a committee headed by the additional deputy commissioner, stated that the developer neglected the demands and issues raised by the RWA and residents. “The repair work was also not monitored. The committee observed that excessively corroded steel reinforcement was painted with a yellow-coloured solution to conceal the corrosion. This lapse is further corroborated by the IIT-Delhi report,” said Yadav.
In his order on Wednesday, Yadav said that the Gurugram authorities have evaluated the cost of each apartment based on the current market value and have added cost for building up the interiors, depending on the size of the apartment, which the builder will reimburse to flat owners.
Officials aware of the matter said flat owners have three options for the resolution of claims -- they can settle the manner bilaterally with the developer, they can seek compensation based on the value of each flat as assessed by two evaluators appointed by the district administration, or they can approach the court seeking compensation.
“An evaluation report has been prepared and depending on the size of the apartment the residents will get ₹1.5-2 crore if they are willing to sell back to the developer,” Yadav said at a press conference, adding that the authorities have appointed the district town planner (DTP) enforcement as the nodal officer to oversee the entire process.
However, residents have expressed disappointment with the DC’s order.
Manoj Singh, a resident of Tower G, said that they were not fully convinced by the process adopted by the evaluators to assess the value of the flats. “The actual market value of the flats should have been taken into account as well as the cost of internal works carried out by the owner,” he said, adding that they have been ignored while deciding the value of the apartments.
Ram Krishan Rana, a resident of Tower D who has been shifted to another tower after the February 10 incident, said he bought a four-bedroom apartment in 2011 for ₹1.75 crore and spent a further ₹40 lakh to do up the interiors. “The current value of our apartment is ₹4 crore, but due to the poor construction quality, no one will ever buy these apartments. The evaluation cost of ₹2 crore is not even half of what we are expecting. We want a newly built apartment of the same size,” he said.
Ashok Jangid, a resident of Tower F, said the demolition order for only one tower is not enough. “The order should have been passed for all affected buildings as none of the towers are safe for habitation. We have stopped going out of town as the February 10 incident haunts us,” he said.
