1. Heard learned counsel for the complainants and the learned counsel for the opposite party. This is for a claim of refund in respect of flats booked in the project “Paras Dews”, Gurugram Haryana developed by the opposite party, M/s. Sepset Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2. The contention raised is that in the case of all the four complainants the flat was booked on 29.12.2012 and was allotted on 10.01.2013 in respect whereof builder buyer agreement was entered on 28.06.2013. Clause 3.1 of the said agreement provides for 42 months plus with a grace period of 6 months for completion and handing over of possession. The payment schedule is also provided for. The complainants allege that neither the project was completed nor the possession offered and to the contrary an e-mail was received by the complainants on 16.07.2018 acknowledging that the project is incomplete. The complainants waited for another two years and then sent a legal notice on 01.04.2019, whereafter the present complaint has been filed seeking refund with interest. 3. The plea with regard to all the 4 complaints is identical. The following chart would explain the same together with the payments which have been made by the complainants against the total consideration amount. The chart mentioning the particulars of all the four complainants is as under:- “MALTI JAIN-CC/1074/2019 1. BOOKING DATE-29.12.2012 2. UNIT NO. 5, SECOND FLOOR, TOWER E OF PARAS DEWS, SECTOR 106, GURUGRAM, HARYANA. 3. ALLOTMENT DATE 10.01.2013 4. AGREEMENT DATE 28.06.2013, CLAUSE 3.1-42 MONTHS PLUS GRACE PERIOD OF 06 MONTHS 5. PAID RS.88,40,629/- PAID AS AGAINST TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.95,46,820/- 6. EMAIL-16.07.2018 AND REPLY WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE 7. LEGAL NOTICE DATED 01.04.2019 8. SEEKING REFUND WITH INTEREST COMPENSATION SARITA JAIN-CC/1075/2019 1. BOOKING DATE-29.12.2012 2. UNIT NO. 7, SEVENTH FLOOR, TOWER F OF PARAS DEWS, SECTOR 106, GURUGRAM, HARYANA 3. ALLOTMENT DATE 10.01.2013 4. AGREEMENT DATE 28.06.2013, CLAUSE 3.1-42 MONTHS PLUS GRACE PERIOD OF 06 MONTHS 5. PAID RS.85,78,578/- PAID AS AGAINST TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.94,42,945/- 6. EMAIL-16.07.2018 AND REPLY WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE 7. LEGAL NOTICE DATED 01.04.2019 8. SEEKING REFUND WITH INTEREST COMPENSATION” RISHAB JAIN-CC/1076/2019 1. BOOKING DATE-29.12.2012 2. UNIT NO.8, EIGHTH FLOOR, TOWER F OF PARAS DEWS, SECTOR 106, GURUGRAM, HARYANA 3. ALLOTMENT DATE 10.01.2013 4. AGREEMENT DATE 28.06.2013, CLAUSE 3.1-42 MONTHS PLUS GRACE PERIOD OF 06 MONTHS 5. PAID RS.89,19,482/- PAID AS AGAINST TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.97,21,330- 6. EMAIL-16.07.2018 AND REPLY WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE. 7. LEGAL NOTICE DATED 01.04.2019 8. SEEKING REFUND WITH INTEREST COMPENSATION SIDDHARTH JAIN-CC/1129/7619 1. BOOKING DATE-29.12.2012 2. UNIT NO.8, SEVENTH FLOOR, TOWER F OF PARAS DEWS, SECTOR 106, GURUGRAM, HARYANA 3. ALLOTMENT DATE 10.01.2013 4. AGREEMENT DATE 28.06.2013, CLAUSE 3.1-42 MONTHS PLUS GRACE PERIOD OF 06 MONTHS 5. PAID RS.89,90,102/-PAID AS AGAINST TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.37,19.545/- 6. EMAIL-16.07.2018 AND REPLY WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE 7. LEGAL NOTICE DATED 01.04.2019 8. SEEKING REFUND WITH INTEREST COMPENSATION.” 4. The aforesaid facts which are on record remain undisputed except to the extent of the allegations that the complainants had not made the payments timely. 5. The fact that the occupancy certificate had not been obtained now stands established with the fact that the complainants were offered possession on 28.04.2013. The offer letter to one of the complainants namely Ms. Sarita Jain has been placed before the Bench. The said fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party, where the letter recites that the occupancy certificate in respect of tower E and F has been obtained now. It is therefore no longer in dispute that the occupancy certificate has been obtained in 2023 and the letter of possession was issued to the complainants pursuant thereto. 6. Learned counsel for the complainants has relied on the following orders of this Commission and one judgment of the Apex Court to substantiate his submissions claiming refund. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the complainants is as follows: (i) Dinesh Goyal Vs. Sepset Properties, Complaint No. 616 of 2020 dated 15.02.2021 (ii) Pawan Aggarwal Vs. Sepset Properties, Complaint No. 1640 of 2017 dated 17.11.2021. (iii) Sushil Singal Vs. Sepset Properties, Complaint No. 1086 of 2019 dated 01.11.2022. (iv) Tarun Kumar Vs. Sepset Properties, Complaint No. 1164 of 2019 dated 28.07.2022. (v) Gunjan Aggarwal Vs. Sepset Properties, Complaint No. 257 of 2019 dated 28.09.2020. (vi) Rohit Chaudhary Vs. Vipul Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2015 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. It is also urged that the Apex Court in the case of Rohit Choudhary (Supra) had awarded the interest at rate of 12% per annum. A copy of all the judgments referred to above are in a compilation on record. 8. It is further pointed out that the order of this commission in the case of Pawan K. Aggarwal (Supra) has been challenged before the Apex Court by the opposite party in Civil Appeal No.9041/2022 where an interim order was passed on 02.12.2022 to the following effect:- “Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable after four weeks. Mr. Gaurav Goel, learned AdvocateonRecord, who is on caveat, accepts and waives formal notice on behalf of the sole respondent. Meanwhile, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount, as awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, before the Registry of this Court, within a period of four weeks from today. On doing so by learned counsel for the appellant, the Registry is directed to invest the said amount in an interestbearing Fixed Deposit Receipt in any Nationalized Bank which fetches more interest rate, initially for a period of six months, with autorenewal facility. On deposit of the amount by the appellant, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed” 9. The opposite party had defaulted in making the deposit and were granted a last opportunity to deposit the entire amount vide order dated 06.04.2023. The same was also defaulted and ultimately the opposite parties undertook to deposit the amount through a demand draft which stands recorded in the order of the Apex Court dated 14.08.2023 extracted herein under: “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Delay in filing application for restoration is condoned. 3. Subject to the appellant(s) depositing the demand draft of Rs.1,83,84,036/- (Rupees one crore eighty three lakh eighty four thousand thirty six) with the Registry of this Court within two days, the appeal is restored to its original number and file. 4. IA No.119098/2023 is allowed. 5. The miscellaneous application is disposed of. 6. Let the said amount be deposited in a high interest bearing FDR account of a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of six months with auto-renewal facility. 7. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 8. Post the appeal for hearing on 03.10.2023.” It is informed that the case before the Apex Court is still pending. 10. With the aid of the aforesaid orders of this Commission and the judgement of the Apex Court as well as the interim orders extracted hereinabove, it is urged that the complainants are entitled to full refund along with interest as claimed. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party has advanced his submissions contending that possession has been offered and the delay was on account of the force majeure circumstances that the opposite party had to face. It is also contended that the complainants have failed to take possession and therefore refund should not be granted. It is therefore submitted in essence that there was deviation in default on the part of the complainants themselves in making the payment hence the complaints are not maintainable. It is also urged that since the Apex Court has intervened, therefore the relief claimed should remain suspended. 12. Having considered the submissions raised the facts of the present cases are almost identical to the decisions which have already been rendered by this Commission which have been cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the complainants and referred to hereinabove. The identical legal issues in respect of the same or similar projects have been answered in favour of the complainants in those decisions. I do not find any reason to deviate from the said findings recorded by this Commission and the complaints as in my opinion the claim for refund deserves to be allowed on the same grounds. The interim orders passed by the apex court are to deposit the entire amount which also prima facie admits the claim of similar complainants, hence there is no impediment as such to keep these complaints pending. Consequently, these complaints are allowed, the relief prayed for the refund of the amount deposited by each of the complainants as indicated in chart hereinabove shall be paid by the opposite party within a period of 3 months from today along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of each deposit. In the event of default the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12%. 13. Costs of Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainants is also allowed to be paid by the opposite party. | 
