ORDER (ORAL) Learned Counsel for the parties submit that this case is covered by the decisions of this Commission in “Consumer Case -2- No.1605 of 2017 Pinki Saini Vs. M/s Imperia Structure Ltd., decided on 09.08.2018” and “Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017, Anil Patni & Anr. vs. M/s Imperia Structures Ltd., and connected matters decided on 12.09.2018 and that the order in Anil Patni’s case (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni And Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783”. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that similar directions be issued in this matter. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants had booked a flat No.H-502, 5th Floor in Tower H, in the housing scheme of the Opposite Party known as “The Esfera” in Sector 37 C, Gurgaon-Dwarka Expressway Gurgaon on 02.01.2012. The Builder Buyer Agreement was executed on 19.12.2012 and the due date of delivery was 19.05.2016. On various dates, the Complainants made the payments of ₹74,07,714/-. The total cost of construction was ₹75,85,250/-. The contentions of the Complainants is that despite making almost complete payment to the Opposite Party, the possession of the flat has not been -3- delivered to them so far and there is no offer of possession and that the construction is not complete. The Complainants have filed the present Complaint claiming refund of their deposited amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of each deposit till the date of actual payment, ₹10 Lakhs for the mental harassment and agony caused to them; ₹1,85,940/- towards the compensation for loss of tax benefits by them and ₹1 Lakh towards cost of litigation. 4. The claim has been contested by the Opposite Party contending that there due to demonetization and force majeure, the project could not be completed on time and no offer of possession could be made. 5. We have perused the case laws submitted on behalf of the Complainants claiming that the facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered by Pinki Saini’s case (supra) and Anil Patni’s case (supra). 6. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has also not disputed that the on the identical facts and circumstances and the issues, an order against them had been passed by this Commission which has been duly confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Patni’s case (supra). -4- 7. We are satisfied that the present Complaint is identical to the decided matters and therefore, we issue the same directions which have been issued in the Pinki Saini’s case (supra) and are duly confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. While allowing the Complaint, we hereby issue the following directions: - The Opposite Party is directed to refund the deposited amount of ₹74,07,714/- with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of realization together with litigation cost of ₹50,000/- to the Complainants;
- These directions are to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the said period.
9. With these directions, the present Complaint stands disposed of. | 
