A woman who bought a flat in Chintels Paradiso in Gurgaon’s Sector 109, where a deadly collapse four years ago led to the whole project being declared unsafe, is set to receive a higher compensation of Rs 4 crore.
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has directed the developer, Chintels India Private Limited, to pay higher compensation to the flat buyer for her 3,150-square foot unit, after relying on Google’s “AI overview” to track a 64.7% jump in local property rates.
In an order passed on March 30 in the Chintels Paradiso case, Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar directed that complainant Aruna Garg be compensated at a rate of Rs 13,000 per square foot.
The rate marks a steep departure from the Rs 7,500 per square foot offered by the developer based on a district collector-appointed committee’s prior assessment.
The complaint was filed before the authority in 2024. To justify the enhanced compensation, the Adjudicating Officer turned to Artificial Intelligence, noting: “According to Al overview, the property prices in Sector 109, Gurugram, experienced significant appreciation between February 2022 (the date when towers of ‘Chintels Paradiso’, including tower where unit of complainant is situated, were declared unfit for human dwelling) and March 2026 (present date) largely driven by developers of Dwarka Expressway.”
“The average property rates for apartments rose from approximately Rs 6,500-7,000 per square feet in early 2022 to roughly Rs 12,000-12,400 square feet by Quarter-1, 2026. The overall appreciation in property rates in Sector 109, Gurugram, saw a dramatic increase of approximately 64.7% over the last three years,” the officer noted.
When contacted, a spokesperson for Chintels told The Indian Express, “We have not yet received any official order [copy] yet. When we do receive it, then we can comment.”
Story continues below this ad
A ‘deadly’ collapse
The case stems from the incident on February 10, 2022, when a portion of Flat Number 603 in Tower D of the Chintels Paradiso project collapsed. The collapse brought down five floors and resulted in the deaths of two women residents.
Subsequent structural audits by a team of experts from IIT-Delhi revealed a widespread presence of chlorides in the concrete at the time of production, the order noted. Experts had noted that poor quality concrete played a role in the deterioration, rendering repairs technically and economically unfeasible.
The project comprised nine residential towers. Each of these structures were declared unfit for habitation after extensive structural audits by IIT-Delhi and the Central Building Research Institute (CBRI). The Gurgaon district administration then ordered their phased demolition, with three towers (F,G,H) having been razed as of late 2025.
What the HRERA said in current case
Holding the developer strictly accountable, HRERA observed: “What to say of the unit allotted to the complainant, the entire project has been found unsafe for human dwelling. Allottee-complainant cannot be blamed for this defect, rather it was the sole responsibility of the respondent to construct the project as per prescribed norms. It is not denied on behalf of respondent that at the time of allotment of unit, the allottee-complainant was assured for ‘international standard of construction’ by the promoter/respondent as alleged by the former. The respondent is thus liable to compensate the complainant in this case.”
Story continues below this ad
Previously, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a related writ petition, had pointed to two options for the affected allottees. Option I allowed occupants to vacate and receive compensation between Rs 6,500 and Rs 7,900 per square foot depending on the tower, while Option II required the builder to reconstruct the project at the same site.
During the HRERA proceedings, a deadlock emerged between the two parties. The developer’s counsel stated the company was not inclined to allow Option II, entirely rejecting the possibility of reconstructing any further flats.
Concurrently, the complainant rejected the Rs 7,500 per square foot rate of Option I, arguing the committee had not properly assessed current prevailing prices and that the offered rates were grossly inadequate. The complainant also submitted evidence showing the developer was selling units in a neighbouring project, Chintels Serenity, for up to Rs 16,000 per square foot.
Declining to be strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act for the submitted documents, the Tribunal accepted the complainant’s premise of price appreciation in the area.
Story continues below this ad
Consequently, the developer has been directed to pay Rs 4,09,50,000 (including Rs 1.8 crore paid as sale consideration) as compensation for the 3,150-square foot unit, refund Rs 4,60,000 for stamp duty charges, and further pay Rs 2,00,000 for mental agony and harassment, alongside Rs 50,000 as litigation costs.
