Chintels: Balcony in Tower F flat sags

Gurugram: The balcony of one of the flats in Tower F of Chintels Paradiso apartment complex in Gurugram sector 109 sagged, and the developer cordoned off the tower on Monday — the latest of a series of incidents that have raised question marks over the structural integrity of the condominium.

Chintels India Ltd, the developer of the project, wrote to the department of town and country planning informing them that the tower has been cordoned off, and asked the department to get the tower vacated immediately.The Residents Welfare Association, however, said that the balcony sagged a few months ago but the developer took cognizance only recently because they want to get the towers vacated “forcibly”. There are 60 flats in Tower F of which only two apartments are occupied.

On February 10, the ceiling slabs of a portion of six flats collapsed on February 10 at Tower D of the Chintels Paradiso, killing two residents. Following the incident, a structural audit was conducted after which towers D, E and F were ordered to be vacated. The residents and the developer are engaged in negotiating a rehabilitation package but a settlement is yet to be reached.Chintels India Limited told the town and country planning department that the balcony of flat number 403 on the fourth floor of Tower F has sagged, and “since there is a ban on any kind of repair work in these towers, they will not be able to repair it”.

The developer said it was ready to pay shifting charges to the occupants of flats in towers E,F, G and H as per the directions of the department.Rakesh Hooda, RWA president, said not only the tower has been cordoned off but the gate has also been locked, making it difficult for people to enter the building. “This is is only being done to harass the flat owners,” he said.

A member of the RWA who asked not to be named said, “Only two families are staying in Tower F, and are demanding early compensation. Rent should also be paid to flat owners in Tower G as they also will have to wait till the settlement is completed. Paying shifting charges only while occupants will suffer due to fault of the developer is unfair.”

When asked about the incident, Manish Yadav, district town planner, enforcement, said they came to know that few families are still living in the towers despite directions from the administration to vacate the buildings. “The occupants of the flats in these towers were asked to vacate earlier. We will ensure that these flats are vacated, else action will be taken against violators,” he said.

A spokesperson for Chintels India Ltd said,“The administration has ordered the towers to be vacated only for the safety and security of residents, and it is very important that they abide by the order.”Legal notice

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the flat owners of Chintels Paradiso, on Monday sent a legal notice to the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) chairman-cum-deputy commissioner against the order issued to the owners of flats E, F and G to vacate their flats.The notice said that flat owners should be given rent, shifting charges or other relief till the dispute is settled.

When asked about the matter, DDMA chairman Nishant Kumar Yadav said that an appropriate reply will be filed after examining this legal notice.Settlement for Tower G In a a related development, the developer on Monday extended the offer of settlement to flat owners in Tower G on the lines of the offer made to residents of Tower D, E and F.

According to officials aware of the offer, the developer will pay flat owners 6,500 per sq ft plus other charges as decided by the district administration committee probing the matter. The developer will also pay rent to owners till the settlement is carried out. As per a second option offered by the developer, the buyers will have to wait for three to four years and also pay 1000 per sq feet as construction charge to developer to get new flats of the same size. However, such people will not be paid any rent, according to the offer.Earlier this month, the district administration announced that Tower G of the condominium was unfit for habitation and must be vacated.