1. Heard Mr. Deepak Mehra, counsel for the complainant and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, counsel for the opposite party. 2. Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party (i) to pay Rs.20 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. June, 2012 till the date of payment, (ii) to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case. 3. It has been stated that the opposite party was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects. In the coming project of the opposite party, complainant booked a flat on 05.03.2011 and deposited a sum of Rs.20 lacs through cheque. After deposit of that amount, although the complainant used to enquire about the booking of the flat, but the opposite party used to give evasive reply. The complainant sent several representations in this respect to the opposite party. One of such representation sent on 17.10.2016 through Registered Post has also been filed along with the complaint. When nothing was done by the opposite party, then the complainant filed a CC No.1555 of 2017 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi which was returned by the order dated 13.12.2017 for presentation before National Commission. Thereafter, this complaint has been filed on 30.01.2018. 4. The opposite party filed its written reply on 27.03.2018 in which the application for expression of interest for residential apartment and as well as deposit made by the complainant on 05.03.2011 of Rs.20 lacs has not been disputed but it has been denied that the complainant has made any representation to the opposite party, enquiring about the allotment of the flat. It has been stated that the application dated 05.03.2011 is only an expression of interest of the complainant for allotment of a flat in coming project. There was no commitment of the opposite party. Under this application, in case of refund, interest @6% per annum was payable and not @9% per annum as claimed. 5. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Amit Saraf as well as affidavit of admission and denial of documentary evidence. The opposite party filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Madan Dogra as well as affidavit of admission and denial of documentary evidence. Both the parties filed their short synopsis of arguments. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The deposit of Rs.20 lacs as well as the application for expression of interest for residential apartment has not been disputed. As the opposite party has failed to allot any residential flat thereafter for a long period of about 8 years, although the amount of Rs.20 lacs has already been deposited by the complainant therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party cannot withhold that amount. So far as interest is concerned, in case of refund interest @9% per annum is payable. It may be mentioned that by interim order dated 28.12.2021, cost of Rs.10000/- was imposed upon the opposite party out of which the cost of Rs.5000/- was to be paid to the complainant which has not been paid. Therefore, this amount shall also be included along with the total amount payable to the complainant inasmuch as Supreme Court, in several cases, has prescribed rate of interest @ 9% per annum. ORDER In the result, the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.2000000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its realization and cost of Rs.5000/-, within two months from today. | 
