JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The brief facts of the case are that complainant had booked a Unit in the residential complex “Mahagun Mezzaria” at Plot No. GH-01/A, Sector-78, Noida and paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 03.10.2013. The total consideration amount was Rs.1,62,26,005/-. The possession of the unit was to be handed over by 30.06.2016. As per the allotment letter dated 14.11.2013, the complainant had paid sum of Rs.1,62,58,744/- on various dates till 20.10.2016. Despite receiving this amount, the opposite party failed to hand over the possession of the subject unit till the date of filing of the complaint. The present complaint has been filed alleging that it amounts to deficiency in service. In the complaint, complainant has prayed for handing over of the possession and in the alternative refund of the entire money alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also claimed several other reliefs. 2. In the written version, all these contentions that unit was booked in the name of the complainant, that he had paid the amount of Rs.1,62,58,744/- towards the construction of the subject unit and that the promised date of possession during the scheduled time are not denied. It is further submitted that delay had occurred due to unforeseen circumstances and the opposite party had suffered penalty as per the contractual commitment as per clause 10.4 of the allotment letter. It is submitted that delay had occurred due to ground water restriction and because the construction was not allowed within 10 km radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within the distance of Eco Sensitive Zone and because the contractor also defaulted and that the opposite party had also suffered the effect of demonetization and GST. It is also not denied in the written statement that till the filing of the complaint, project was not complete. 3. Parties led their evidences. Complainant has filed its written submissions. No written submissions have been filed by the opposite party. 4. We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that it is covered matter and that in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2021 titled M/s Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manish Kumar Sinha and Anr. decided on 11.01.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the fact that opposite party had been deficient in service and had ordered the refund of the money alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits. It is prayed that similar order be also passed in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has not disputed this contention of learned counsel of the opposite party that vide earlier order which relates to same project, they were found deficient in service and findings were confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the deposited amount was ordered to be refunded alongwith 9% interest. 6. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was supplied by the learned counsel for the complainant. We are satisfied that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relates to the same project i.e. Mahagun Mezzaria being developed by the opposite party. In this appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the following directions: “It is, therefore, directed that the amounts deposited by the respondents in respect of the apartment in question shall be refunded to them along with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of respective deposits. The other direction issued by the Commission as regards cost of litigation is maintained.” 7. Following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following directions are issued: The opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,62,58,744/- to the complainant @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits. We also order payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. 8. With these directions, the present Complaint stands disposed of. | 
