JUSTICE MS DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present consumer complaint are that the complainant had booked a residential flat on 20.12.2012 with the opposite party in the project, ‘Crestview’, Wildflower Country, Gurgaon, Haryana. The complainants were allotted Flat no. 1201, in Block A5 of Crestview, Wild Flower Country, Gurgaon. Apartment allotment agreement was executed between the parties on 14.01.2013. As per the agreement the total consideration of the apartment was Rs.96,12,602/- and the possession was to be delivered within 36 months, i.e., on or before 13th January 2016. The complainant in total has deposited a sum of Rs.29,81,183/- with the opposite party on various dates. It is also averred by the complainant that more than 4 ½ years have elapsed the project has still not being completed and no construction or development work is being carried out at the site. 2. Being aggrieved by the acts of the opposite party, the complainant initially approached the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.03.2017 dismissed the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the present complaint with the prayer for refund of the entire amount of Rs.29,81,183/- deposited with the opposite party along with interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount with effect from the respective date of deposit till the date of refund; Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for deficiency in services and Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges. 3. The opposite party has filed their written statement which is taken on record. In their written statement they have also not disputed the deposit of the amount in respect of the apartment in question. Since none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party, they were proceeded ex parte on 25.09.2018. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. 5. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the complainant states that he confines his argument only to the directions which has been issued by this Commission in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan and Anr. vs M/s Unitech Limited (Habitat) decided on 17th April 2018 and prays for no other relief. 6. The complainant by way of un-contradicted testimony has proved that the opposite party has failed to hand over the possession of the apartment within the stipulated period and he also confined his relief only to the refund of the deposited amount. In view of the earlier stand of this Commission in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan and Anr. (Supra) I allow the present consumer complaint with the following directions: The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.29,81,183/- to the complainant within six weeks from today along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of payment of respective amount till the realisation of the amount. The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
7. With these directions the present consumer complaint stands disposed of. | 
