ORDER (ORAL) The present Complaint had been filed by the Complainant before the State Commission for refund of the amount paid to the Opposite Party on different dates for two flats T19-1501 and T20-1702 in the project of the Opposite Party called “Parsvnath Privilege”. The flats were booked on 27-28.04.2006 and an agreement was executed on 03.10.2007. Subsequently, on 08.08.2012, in lieu of these two flats, another flat No.T17-903 was allotted to the Complainant and the amount paid towards the -2- earlier two flats was transferred for the allotment of this one flat. On several dates, the payments were made by the Complainant before the date of delivery of possession and the subject flat was to be given within 36 months plus six months grace period. However, since there was no offer of possession till the year 2016, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant before the State Commission. 2. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.11.2019 returned the Complaint for presentation in the National Commission in terms of “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC). Thereafter, the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant. The evidences had been recorded by the State Commission and therefore, this Commission had started hearing the parties from the stage of final arguments. 3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties submit that it is a covered case covered under the several judgments of this Commission. It is submitted by the parties that in majority of such decisions, this Commission while ordering refund and has awarded compensation in the form of interest @ 9% p.a. -3- 4. Learned Counsel for the Complainant, however, submits that the Complainant is also entitled for the litigation costs in view of findings of this Commission in “Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Sangeeta Mehra And Another, 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 327” and “Rohit Jain, vs. parsvnath Developers Ltd., 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 748”. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that vide these two abovementioned orders of this Commission, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party with regard to handing over of the possession to the allottees in the project “Parsvnath Privilege” had been determined and confirmed. Also the Opposite Party has failed to point out any reasonable reason for not being able to offer the possession to the Complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is hereby confirmed. In the case of Rohit Jain’s case (supra), this Commission has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. and the in the case of Sangeeta Mehra’s case (supra), this Commission has also awarded litigation costs. In view of these, we pass the following order: -4- - The Opposite Party shall refund the entire principal amount of ₹53,74,838.83/- to the Complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of each payment till the date of refund;
- The Opposite Party shall also pay ₹25,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
6. The payment shall be made within three months. With these directions, the Complaint stands disposed of. | 
