BEFORE: HON’BLE MR SUBHASH CHANDRA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE AVM J RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.,) MEMBER For the Complainant Mr Aditya Parolia, Advocate with Ms Sumbul Ismail and Ms Ishita Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties Mr Prabhakar Tiwari and Ms Shruti, Advocate Dated : 18th October 2024 ORDER Vide order dated 11.02.2022 the respondent builder had been directed to complete the project within one year and hand over possession with compensation for the delay as interest @ 6% per annum from the date of promised possession till the date of offer of possession as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. MA no.374 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant stating that the project stands abandoned and there is no possibility of the project in question being handed over in the near future. He therefore, prays for intervention of this Commission under Section 47 of the Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has filed an application number as Diary no.46188 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court praying for refund, as a buyer in this project on the grounds that the project is not likely to be executed. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, (2020) 18 SCC 613 and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, in CA No. 12238 of 2018 decided 02.04.2019, (2019) 5 SCC 725, an allottee cannot be expected to wait inordinately for possession and is entitled to seek refund from the respective dates of deposits. In view of the submission before us, it is considered appropriate and just to allow the MA and direct refund of the amount deposited by the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum. This order shall be complied with within 75 days of receipt of this order failing which refund shall be made with interest @ 12% per annum. MA no.374 of 2024 is disposed in the above terms. No order as to costs. | 
