ORAL None appears on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit evidence has also not been filed by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party is proceeded ex parte. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant states that she confines her argument only to the refund of the amount in terms of the previous order of this Commission in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan and Anr. vs M/s Unitech Limited (Habitat) decided on 17th April 2018. She prays that a similar order may be passed in this complaint also. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the complainant and perused the record. 4. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant booked an apartment on 21.07.2006 in a project namely Unitech Habitat situated at Sector Pi – 2, Alistonia Estate, Greater Noida with the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.5,82,948/- towards the initial booking amount. Vide buyer’s agreement dated 22.08.2006 the complainant was allotted an apartment no. 1004 on 10th Floor, Tower 3 in the said project for a total consideration of Rs.61,26,771/- The apartment was to be handed over to the complainant within 36 months i.e. by 22.08.2009. Till date the complainants have paid a total sum of Rs.58,55,297/- including service tax and interest on delayed payments on various dates. 5. It is the case of the complainant that after the expiry of the stipulated period the possession of the flat has not so far been handed over to him. Finding no other way out, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed for refund of the entire amount of Rs.58,55,297/- collected from him by the opposite party towards the consideration of the flat along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of litigation. 6. The opposite party has filed their written statement. They have not disputed the deposit of the amount of Rs. 58,55,297/- with them. It is also not disputed that they could not hand over the possession of the flat within stipulated period. 7. The complainant by way of un-contradicted testimony has proved that the opposite party has failed to handover the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. She has also confined her relief only to the refund of the deposited amount. This Court has taken a similar view in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan and Anr. vs M/s Unitech Limited (Habitat) decided on 17th April 2018. 8. In view of this Commission’s earlier directions, I also direct that: The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.58,55,297/- 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.
9. With these directions the present consumer complaint stands disposed of. | 
